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
Nivkh alphabets	Closed	Modun (t)	28 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	22 hours
Wudu	Closed	Nasserb786 (t)	20 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	9 days, 22 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	13 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	13 hours
Hypnosis	Closed	Skalidrisalba (t)	8 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 19 hours
Algeria	Closed	Monsieur Patillo (t)	6 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours
Tuner (radio)	In Progress	Andrevan (t)	5 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours
Jessica Nabongo	Closed	Log6849129 (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Wolf	New	Nagging Prawn (t)	1 days, 5 hours	None	n/a	Nagging Prawn (t)	1 days, 5 hours
USA	Closed	2806:2F0:A700:F275:7C5E:A0B8:369A:3A72 (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Barb horse	New	TahaKahi (t)	45 minutes	None	n/a	TahaKahi (t)	45 minutes

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 14:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Nivkh alphabets

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Modun on 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Nivkh alphabets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Modun (talk · contribs)
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Good day! Initially, the dispute began because of my moderation of the specified article. I just rechecked in what form the link in the specified form has the current alphabet. My other opponent ignored this fact, and began to insist that the letters he replaced are allographs, but no convincing evidence was shown, and for some reason now I have to prove the opposite. My other opponent behaves as if the colonizer knows more than other natives and is trying to teach them to read and write. Sorry, maybe for the unfortunate analogy. But the evidence provided is more like OR.

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

[[1]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Either the opponent will provide other, more convincing evidence, or roll back the edits to match the ALREADY EXISTING references in the article.

Summary of dispute by Kwamikagami

These letter variants are allographs, per sources, and both variants are acceptable for the writing of Nivkh and many other languages of Siberia. (For example, ⟨Ң⟩ with a ticked tail and ⟨Ӈ⟩ with a curved tail, and similarly with other letters in the series, e.g Қ/Ӄ and Ҳ/Ӽ.) AFAICT, Modun has failed to provide a single source to the contrary, and is relying solely on WP:TRUTH.

We have as one source, in a discussion about why it was a mistake for Unicode to assign separate characters to these curved ⟨Ӈ⟩ letter variants, and the reasons Unicode has refused to do the same for additional letters (e.g. a curved variant of ⟨Ҷ⟩ che), by an expert in some of the languages in question (namely N. and E. Khanty and Nenets), an account of how a an influential textbook publishing house (Education Ltd.) created the curved-tail glyphs as in-house variants of these letters for their primers, primary-grade textbooks and other materials when publishing in the govt-assigned alphabet. This is part of a series of discussions involving multiple linguists working on these languages. We also have recent govt publications, in Nivkh, using the original ticked (e.g. ⟨Ң⟩) forms of the letters, including formal material such as trade documents. That is, both forms are in use in the modern era. Modun keep providing sources that use the Education variants of the letters, e.g. ⟨Ӈ⟩, as if they somehow negates the other. Modun has reverted the addition of the ticked variants to the alphabet charts and deleted a reference to the Unicode discussion, replacing it with a 'cn' tag.

There's nothing suggesting Nivkh is special in this regard. It's a general feature of these letters across the minority languages of Siberia, no more significant than the difference between double-loop ⟨g⟩ vs script ⟨ɡ⟩ in English, and unusual only in that Unicode (mistakenly) assigned them separate codes.

For Khanty, another language of Siberia that uses some of these letters, we recently found an orthography committee who decided that the curved-tail variants ⟨Ӈ Ԓ⟩ are to be preferred. At the same time, the principle Khanty language journal has gone in the opposite direction, using a third variant, ⟨Ӊ Ӆ⟩ with a diagonal tail. Modun insists these are different alphabets, despite no evidence for that idea, because allographs supposedly do not occur in Cyrillic. When I pointed out the extensive allography between Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian, he said those were "font" differences. Well, these are "font" differences too: Education Ltd created their own font for their textbooks.

Because two graphic variants are used for these letters in Nivkh, both by official sources, both should be included in the article. We should presumably stick to one for the examples for consistency, but the alphabet charts should reflect what people actually use. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't say that allographers don't encounter it in Cyrillic. And excuse me, why is the commission for discussing alphabets of one language(s) applicable to another language? It's the same as if we were now discussing the spelling of the English language and why the results would be applicable to other languages (for example, to French, Spanish or other languages).

The source you indicated discusses the Tofa, Khanty and Evenki alphabets, as far as I remember, but there is no mention of the Nivkh alphabet.

This is a direct lie about deletion!

This is what it was like before the rollback: 1, This is what happened after the rollback: 2, 3 and here's what happened next, you added the link LATER!

You can't even provide convincing evidence that these letters are "allographs". This is not a proven fact! Modun (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These forms are allographs across the board, per RS's. They were part of a general Soviet standardization of the minority languages of Russia and occur in multiple languages.

I would think govt ministry publications in Nivkh would count as evidence that both variants are used in Nivkh. That's also suggested by the history, that the curved variants were created by Education Ltd. after the Nivkh alphabet had been created, and were used in Nivkh material, following the govt-set orthography, by Education Ltd.

Deleting a citation and replacing it with a 'cn' tag is a deletion. Calling that a "lie" doesn't change anything. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you bring your conclusions into practice. We do not know for what reasons and why different variants of alphabets were used, and bring this conclusion into practice because these are "allographs" it looks like OR.

here is an example of how you started a "discussion" you deleted the CN column (deleting CN) Modun (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is an excerpt from a discussion about the Khanty countries, where one of your oponets also thinks that this is OR, and at least he is not being disingenuous and does not call things by their proper names. You are inflating an unproven statement as a “fact”. Modun (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your TRUTH is 'fact', but expert conclusions are 'OR'.

We follow sources. It's as simple as that. If you have RS's to support your claims, great! Let's see them. So far you've provided nothing.

BTW, I just found another example of a Nivx text that uses the original letter forms, this time the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, bilingual Nivx and Russian. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, the document was published in the old version of the alphabet. Where is the fact that these letters are allographs? I am a moderator and author of a translation of an article from Russian Wikipedia. Why do I have to prove anything to you?

I asked you a simple question, can you provide another source somewhere where it is said that the indicated letters are allographs? You are constantly trying to give me that this is a "fact". Well, at least provide another source where this is also indicated. Moreover, in the correspondence you indicated, not all linguists agree with this interpretation, but for some reason you ignore this opinion.

You adjust the practice to your convenient picture. This is already OR. Modun (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6.

Practically given by linguists, and no one mentions any "allographs" or the use of any other alphabets at the same time. Everyone consciously uses the same alphabets. But for some reason the opinion of these linguists does not interest you. I doubt that these people made any mistake. No one even mentions the interchangeability of some letters. Modun (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not in the old alphabet, is it? It's the modern alphabet with all of the letters introduced in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nivkh alphabets discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and say that you agree to the ground rules. In particular, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It is not resulting in any progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I will ask a question that I usually ask at the beginning of moderated discussion. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Do not explain the reasons why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged, at this time. We will go into the reasons later, but at this time I am only asking what the issues are, not why there are issues. I understand that there are issues about original research; we can go into them later. However, if there are issues about the reliability of sources, please state them at this time, so that we can ask about them at the reliable source noticeboard.

If there are multiple points in the article that are in dispute, please provide a concise list.

Please state concisely what the content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree. Let's try. Modun (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Summary below. — kwami (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Nivkh)

Summary of Kwami's position: There are two possible pathways, depending on which of us the sources support. Of course, it's possible that RSs might contradict each other. I make three proposals: [a] what I would like to see if I'm correct, [b] what I'd like to see if Modun is correct, and [c] a second issue of using proper alphabetic letters rather than punctuation marks for the Nivx alphabet.

[a] If I'm correct, there are duplicate Unicode characters for several Cyrillic letters used with Siberian languages, according to discussions at Unicode about encoding more of them by linguists who specialize in these languages. Several of these letters are used for Nivx, namely Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ. We should reflect the RS that these are allographs, note that the variants were invented by a specific influential textbook publishing company, and note that both variants are found in official documents. Both variants should be listed in the alphabet charts, though for conciseness we should choose one for the examples.

(There is also the letter Ӻ, which should be mentioned, but because Unicode has refused to encode a second variant of it, due to the argument that that is a mere allograph and not a distinct letter, it wouldn't appear directly in the alphabet charts unless we wanted to use SVG images.)

[b] If I understand correctly, Modun claims that Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ are not allographs, but instead that there are two distinct Nivx alphabets in current use, with apparently identical orthographic rules. If true, the article would still need to reflect that. If Modun can find RS's for that claim, then we should list the two alphabets side by side. We would need to use SVG's for Ӻ, because there is no Unicode support for it in the second alphabet. Perhaps we could merge the cells of the alphabet table where the letters are identical, assuming the same sorting order. Since we would then have competing RS's about the nature of the distinction, we should note the disagreement. We should still choose one alphabet for the examples.

[c] There is a second issue, that of replacing Nivx letters with punctuation marks. We should instead use proper letters, i.e. ⟨Кʼ Ӄʼ/Қʼ Пʼ Тʼ⟩ and dialectically ⟨Чʼ⟩. Here on WP-en, we use the appropriate Unicode characters for apostrophe-like letters. For example, we use the dedicated letter ⟨ʻ⟩ for the Hawaiian ʻokina, and not the single quotation mark. Similarly with other apostrophe-like letters, regardless of whether the script is Latin, Cyrillic or something else. In this case, the alphabetic letter is U+02BC modifier letter apostrophe. Currently the article uses U+2019 right single quotation mark. These characters look more-or-less the same but can behave quite differently. U+2019 is regularly replaced by the ASCII apostrophe per the no-curly-quotes rule of the MOS. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: Cyrillic alphabets of many small (and not only) peoples of Russia (mainly in the North, Siberia and the Far East) have changed, revised and clarified many times. Accordingly, many different variations of orthography were formed, which cancelled the old variations. Often changing the alphabet itself. UNICODE has no competence to change or interpret either the composition of existing alphabets or the current orthographies. The UNICODE consortium is based on the existing orthographies of specific languages. Specific alphabets and orthographies of languages in Russia are established and interpreted by the Russian government (or regional ones within their competence).

“

6. В Российской Федерации алфавиты государственного языка Российской Федерации и государственных языков республик строятся на графической основе кириллицы. Иные графические основы алфавитов государственного языка Российской Федерации и государственных языков республик могут устанавливаться федеральными законами.

7. Порядок утверждения норм языков коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации, правил орфографии и пунктуации этих языков определяется Правительством Российской Федерации. 6. In the Russian Federation, the alphabets of the state language of the Russian Federation and the state languages of the republics are constructed on the graphic basis of the Cyrillic alphabet. Other graphic bases of the alphabets of the state language of the Russian Federation and the state languages of the republics may be established by federal laws. 7. The procedure for approving the norms of the languages of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, the rules of spelling and punctuation of these languages is determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.

”

— The federal law "On the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation"
Article 3. Legal status of languages

Law

The indicated letters Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ have a separate codification in Unicode, and were not originally "variations" of each other. It seems that no spelling reference book says that the letters in question can be variations of each other. This is an assumption that arose from who knows what. Perhaps this is the reason why the old version of the alphabet is used instead of the new one, because not all the letters of the alphabet were codified.

Some sources indicate that for the Nivkh language (Amur dialect) from 1953 to 1979 there was one version of the alphabet. 2, 3, 4, 5 At least, if we are to believe the Nivkh-Russian dictionary of 1970, authored by V.N. Savelyev and Ch.M. Taksami, it had the following form:

А а	Б б	В в	Г г	ӷ	ɧ	ⱨ	Д д	Е е	Ё ё	Ж ж	З з
И и	Й й	Йи йи	К к	К’ к’	Қ қ	Қʼ қʼ	Л л	М м	Н н	Ң ң	О о
П п	П’ п’	Р р	Рш рш	С с	Т т	Т’ т’	У у	Ф ф	Х х	Ҳ ҳ	Һ һ
Ц ц	Ч ч	Ш ш	Щ щ	ъ	Ы ы	ь	Э э	Ю ю	Я я

And after 1979, modern alphabets already looked like this: 1

А а	Б б	В в	Г г	Ӷ ӷ	Ғ ғ	Ӻ ӻ	Д д	Е е	Ё ё	Ж ж	З з
И и	Й й	К к	К’ к’	Ӄ ӄ	Ӄ’ ӄ’	Л л	М м	Н н	Ӈ ӈ	О о	П п
П’ п’	Р р	Р̌ р̌	С с	Т т	Т’ т’	У у	Ў ў	Ф ф	Х х	Ӽ ӽ	Ӿ ӿ
Ц ц	Ч ч	Ш ш	Щ щ	ъ	Ы ы	ь	Э э	Ю ю	Я я

Vladimir Sangi (one of the authors of the alphabet) mentions that the alphabets for both dialects were adopted by the Council of Ministers (government) of the RSFSR in 1979. Perhaps if we could find this document, we would clarify the situation in what form the modern alphabet was adopted.7, 8--Modun (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Thank you for stating what the content issues are. On the one hand, the statements are not concise. I requested concise statements, but I recognize that that may be difficult. So I have a two-part follow-up request. First, please indicate the sections and paragraphs of the article that you want your changes made to. Second, please see whether you can make your statement of what you want to change more concise. If what you have provided is the most concise possible summary, because the issues are complicated, at least it will help to see what paragraphs are being discussed. A third question is whether either editor has questions about the reliability of a source. If so, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for an opinion on the source.

Are there any other content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by Kwami (Nivkh)

These are the edits I would like reversed.

Section: Cyrillic alphabet

In the table, give both variants of the hooked letters, namely ticked Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and curved Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ.
In the table, change deprecated curly quotation marks to the proper apostrophe letter ⟨ʼ⟩.
[not in diff] Below the table, change "Hooked variants of the letters" to "Rounded variants of the letters", since they're all arguably hooked.

Section: Alphabet Correspondence Table

Give both letter variants as above. This only affects cells in the left column, though some of those cells span 2 columns.
This time we're changing ASCII apostrophes to ⟨ʼ⟩. This should be done to all Cyrillic alphabets.
For the Latin alphabet in the right column, the apostrophe should be the spiritus asper ⟨ʻ⟩. For example, the 'k' row should be: Кʼ кʼ | Къ къ | Kʻ kʻ.
[not in diff] Provide a reference for "a 1970 dictionary".
Change ⟨ɧ⟩ to "(approximately ɧ)" or similar, since ɧ is a Latin letter, not Cyrillic. The Cyrillic letter is not supported by Unicode, and so can only be approximated. It might instead be replaced by an SVG of both capital and lower case.
Change Latin ⟨ⱨ⟩ back to Cyrillic ⟨Ԧ ԧ⟩.
ADDENDUM: Given that the only Nivx newspaper agrees with the UNDHR in using er-breve rather than er-caron, I would like that added to the alphabet tables.
ADDENDUM: Remove the letter Ў from the tables, unless we have a RS for it, as it isn't in the current alphabet laid out in Janhunen & Gruzdeva (2016) Bringing the orthography of an indigenous language to the digital age: The case of Nivkh in the Russian Far East. Proceedings of the SCRIPTA 2016, Seoul.

— kwami (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by Modun (Nivkh)

Section: Cyrillic alphabet

There's just one thing I want to change. Cancel the part that says that the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable. Not a single textbook says that these letters are interchangeable. I believe that in this regard, we should separately examine why other letters are used in practice. And simply bring it into line with the source that has already been cited.
Supplement with two variants of alphabets for different idioms/dialects (depending on the periods when they were adopted separately).

Otherwise, there are no global disagreements.--Modun (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by moderator (Nivkh)

It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters. (By the way, do each of those lists of eight letters consist of four upper case letters and four lower case letters?) Is that the main issue? If so, what sources do you have to that effect about these groups of letters (that they are allographs, or that they are different)? Is the question about the reliability of sources, or interpretation of the sources, or are you using different sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by Kwami (Nivkh)

Yes, those are 4 letters, each in capital and lower case, and each in two allographic variants.

Yes, IMO too this is a matter of RSs. There are RSs to support my argument, and AFAIK there are no contrary RSs. At least, none have been presented so far. If Modun can produce RSs, then we would have a conflict of sources; so far AFAICT we do not.

First, there is a series of threads on the Unicode discussion board about these specific letters. Participants include linguists who specialize in the Siberian languages that use them. An example is here: L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280).

There are multiple experts in those discussions who say that these are allographs, the only dispute being whether they are completely interchangeable or whether one variant is to be preferred. It would be like people arguing over whether double-loop 'g' or script 'ɡ' is correct for English: double-loop 'g' is more common, but some publishers prefer script 'ɡ', and that's what's generally used for literacy material. Even if people strongly prefer one over the other, both are found.

We've had an argument that Unicode and the linguists participating in those discussions are irrelevant. The debate is relevant to Unicode because Unicode doesn't normally encode allographs. The consensus now is that it was a mistake to encode the rounded letters Ӄ ӄ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ. They should only have encoded Қ қ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and left it to the font to handle the letter forms, just as publishers who prefer script 'ɡ' for English typeset it as the regular ASCII 'g' and choose a font that displays it the way they like. Unicode has decided therefore that they will not encode any more of these letters and make a bad situation worse. The situation is bad because words can now be encoded multiple different ways with no difference in meaning. A search engine therefore has to treat Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ as being the same 3 letters as Қ Ң Ҳ or people won't be able to reliably seach in texts or online. Search engines do not always accommodate the idiosyncrasies of small languages, so this can be a problem.

Modun objects that that Unicode source does not address Nivx specifically. However, these letters were created in the 1930s for all of the languages of Siberia, which until then had been written in Latin. Nivx was just one of many, and the same publisher's typefaces are used for all of them. If Nivx were different from the others in this regard, it could be used as an argument for encoding these letters. However, according to sources, none of the languages that use these letters make a distinction between their different forms.

The ref above describes how a single textbook publishing house, Prosveschenie ('Enlightenment' or 'Education'), created an in-house typeface that had rounded forms of these letters. There are no other differences -- that is, these aren't new alphabets. Prosveschenie was highly influential, and their textbooks are how many speakers of these languages learned to read. Therefore there is an idea among some speakers that the rounded Prosveschenie letters are the correct forms. However, Russian government ministries continue to use the original ticked forms. For example, here is the UN Declaration of Human Rights in Nivx and Russian. As you can see, they use the ticked allographs in the title of the doc and throughout the text. The fact that it's the modern alphabet is shown both by the date (2014) and by the fact that it uses all of the new letters that were introduced to the Nivx alphabet in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў (thanks to Modun for pointing out that orthographic revision). Again, these new letters appear in both the title and the text.

What we have therefore is a recent, official Nivx text (the official Nivx translation of the UNDHR) that uses the modern orthography with the ticked allographs of these letters, as well as statements by linguists working on the languages of Siberia that a single influential publishing house created the rounded forms, and that the difference is allographic.

— kwami (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply directly to Modun below, per instructions, but would like to point out one factual error. They say Sami 'distinguishes between the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң".' It does not: The Sami alphabet does not have both Ӈ and Ң in its alphabet. Agreed, the Ң form would be easily confused with another letter Sami does have, but Sami (not a Siberian language) does not use the set of letters that the Siberian orthographies are based on. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by Modun (Nivkh)

The Declaration of Human Rights in the Nivkh language, to which my opponent refers, was translated and published not by the Russian government, but by some third-party private organizations. For example, the said declaration was published by a non-governmental printing house with the financial support of "Sakhalin Energy Investment Company LTD", the state did not invest a kopeyka in the publication of this translation of the document.

Secondly, there are also some questions about the quality of such translations. Here is an example of how such publishers released translations: altay, even, shor. Some were published with an unknown version of the alphabet in the corresponding languages, or with a broken encoding. (And this, by the way, is now attached to the UN website)

As for the "common alphabet projects" of the 1930s, in specific languages they may differ from the common projects, since in specific languages the projects are adjusted to the orthography of their language. For example, the alphabets of the languages of the peoples of the Caucasus differ greatly from the "Yanalif" project (new script). In addition, they were published by the Ucpedgiz (Учпедгиз, Uchpedgiz) publishing house, which is the same Prosveshchenie (Просвещение) that my opponent criticizes for allegedly "imposing" its version of letters. But this company is a state publishing house.

Thirdly, there is no more evidence (at least for some reason it has not been additionally presented, which I asked for) that the indicated letters are "allographs". All modern educational materials on the Nivkh language consistently adhere to one version of the alphabet. Sociolinguists monitoring the state of this language also provide this version of the alphabet on their website. Unfortunately, due to inconsistent policy, we now have a situation where for some languages the alphabetic base and composition of letters have changed quite often. For example, in Sámi, the alphabet has changed quite often over the past hundred years. And it also distinguishes between the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң", otherwise it would cause confusion because of the other letter "Ӊ".The source my opponent refers to is simply a working correspondence within UNICODE. It does not consider specific situations, "how acceptable is such a replacement?" (In my example with the Kildin Sámi language) Therefore, I believe that some additional sources are needed to confirm that such a replacement is specifically acceptable in the Nivkh language. Perhaps native speakers simply do not see the difference because they are not specialists in this field and simply proceed from the real situation of their language.--Modun (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the territorial feature has nothing to do with it, the spelling was not initially adopted based on the territorial feature. It was adopted for the so-called conditionally peoples of the North (Arctic) (Unified Northern Alphabet). So the criterion is not the peoples' residence in Siberia.

Secondly, you know very well that in the Kildin Sámi language letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered allographs. And if this is so, then where is the guarantee that it is not the same in other languages. That is why I ask you to provide an additional source that specifically in the Nivkh language these letters are supposedly considered allographs. But why do you have only one source available? Other sources point only to indirect signs

Thirdly, with your answer you have already deviated from the instructions. Modun (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator (Nivkh)

I stated what I thought was the issue, and it is:

It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters.

It appears that that is the issue. It further appears that one editor has a source, which is a translation from the Russian original, and the other editor questions the reliability of the translation. Is that a correct statement of the underlying issue? If so, I am asking each editor to identify any source that they are relying on, and for each editor to identify any source that they are challenging. I am asking for each editor to supply details of the sources, so that we can request the reliable source noticeboard to provide an opinion on source reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

There are multiple statements, by linguists who work on Siberian languages that use these letters, that the two sets are allographs. An example follows, with statements/quotations from two such linguists:

L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280).

I can dig up other threads that say basically the same thing.

There are also recent publications that use the 'ticked' forms of the letters for Nivx, such as mining concessions in Sakhalin. Here is the UNDHR from 2014, using the modern alphabet:

UN Declaration of Human Rights (bilingual in Nivx and Russian).

I don't know that Modun challenges the translation itself, just the use of these allographs for Nivx.

I don't think I have anything to challenge. Modun has presented several Nivx texts that use the rounded allographs. However, no-one disputes that those forms are very commonly used. The crux of the matter is that they're equivalent, even if some publishers prefer one over the other. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just contacted a Russian scholar of Nivx, and they confirmed that these letters "are just allographs." They haven't written about this and doesn't know of anyone who has, but that's now at least 3 linguists who say they're allographs, against zero contrary evidence provided by Modun. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I just heard back from a Finnish linguist who said that "Nivkh is indeed no different from other Northern Eurasian minority languages" in that Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "allographs" of Қ Ң Ҳ etc. They said that the Unicode characters Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "unnecessary" and that Қ Ң Ҳ etc. should be used instead, or at a minimum that search engines should treat them as the same. He copied an email from a colleague of his:

it was probably a mistake to include different kinds of "descenders", "hooks" and "tails" in the Unicode standard in the first place. It might have been wiser to leave the choice of the descender form to font designers. If you look, for example, at materials published in Nivkh, you will find that they have used fonts with three different types of descenders: 1) j-descender attached directly to the vertical element, 2) j-descender attached to the serif or right side of the vertical element, 3) the standard Russian c/shch-descender.

They attached a photo of the Нивх диф ("Nivx Language") newspaper, which uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. Rather than me uploading to Commons, you can check out the newspaper here. As you can see, they continue to use the Қ Ң Ҳ forms, at least as of 2023. I think that settles it, if the Nivx newspaper uses those allographs. (It also confirms the use of a breve rather than a caron over the ar, a variant that can be seen in the UNDHR.) — kwami (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Please understand, I try to comment on the content and point out the shortcomings of the sources provided by user Kwamikagami. This is not against the rules we agreed to.

While I have presented as an example several sources from various educational materials to sociolinguistic data (russian-nivkh nivkh-russian dictionary, nivkh farytail "Faithful Urgun", Stories from the Bible in Nivkh and Russian languages 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6 etc) using consistently one variant of the alphabet without indicating any "allographs", another opponent asks why only one source is presented.

Kwamikagami cited a source L2/23-015 where, according to his interpretation, in languages where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. Kwamikagami cited a source where, according to his interpretation, in languages where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. However, Kwamikagami is a little disingenuous, in that the letter "Ӈ" does not exist in Kildin Sámi language, moreover, in this language the above-mentioned letters are deliberately distinguished as different, i.e. not being allographs of each other. And yes, this source does not address the question of whether these letters are allographs in the Nivkh language.

Moreover, the source dates back to December 2022, and the declaration of human rights in the Nivkh language to which it refers dates back to 2014 (the earliest version is from 2012), i.e. retroactively declares that the letters used are "allographs". As for the quality of the translation of the declarations, my example shows how other translations either use an unknown alphabet (Altai translation), or a translation with a broken encoding, and then how correct is the Nivkh translation of the declaration of human rights in the alphabet? And how correct is it to refer to it then?

Kwamikagami does not answer the question of why speakers had to move away from one version of the alphabet. That's a different question.--Modun (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Excuse me, what?! Is there any link to these linguists? Or is this another WP:TRUTH? Without a source, this is just an empty statement, and without any resources and references, it is impossible to continue working in Wikipedia!--Modun (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.s. My question is, why are native speakers taught to write in one version of the alphabet, but in the end, for some reason, in practice they use another version of the alphabet "with allographs"? Why can't you just attach another confirming source, where it is clearly stated that in a specific language (in this case, Nivkh), both letter versions are "allographs"? Why are you leading another discussion outside the moderated discussion, which you can't even cite as a source? Sorry, neither the moderator of the discussion nor I simply know the subject of your discussion. And besides, why are you referring to only one linguist's opinion?--Modun (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Since both editors have made relatively long statements, I will have to ask a question. Is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [2] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages? So my question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research?

One of the editors refers to conversations with linguists. Those conversations have no reliability for Wikipedia because they are not verifiable unless the linguists can identify publications, either by themselves or by other scholars, that state what they have said.

One of the editors has made a long statement that asks various questions. Are they offering a source? Are they contesting the reliability of the document mentioned above?

Are there any other source questions, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

The single Nivx newspaper uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. That establishes that they're used for Nivx.

Modun claims that they create different alphabets, but has not presented a single source to support that claim.

We have a linguist working on Siberian languages, Tapani Salminen, stating that "the WITH HOOK characters represent allographs created by the «Просвещение» (“Enlightenment”, later «Дрофа») publishing house, [...] and search engines in particular should start treating them correctly as variants of the same characters."

This is for the letters themselves, for all languages.

A second, Rustam Yusupov, says, "Practically, people in Russia don't make a difference between hooks and descenders."

Again, in Russia, not with any particular language.

(The third, Arzhana Surun, applies this specifically to Tofalar.)

I checked with other specialists to be sure, but above we have 2 linguists saying they're allographs, and the one-and-only Nivx newspaper using the forms that Modun says aren't used. That debunks their claims, and is not contradicted by anything they present. — kwami (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

In my opinion, Kwamikagami has provided insufficient evidence to conclude that the letters in question are simply allographs of each other. For example, in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs.

In general, in the formulation in which Kwamikagami wrote it is OR. I would simply change it a little. I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets.

As for Rustam Yusupov's comment, I dare to assume that he meant that native speakers simply do not see the difference in practice which version of the letter to use for reading and writing. Replacing these letters with other versions, say, with Latin versions, I do not think that in practice they would see much of a difference either.

We still have not figured out why native speakers learned on one version of the alphabet, but in practice have to use another? In general, I will not repeat myself, initially I would simply change the wording.

P.S. At least write my nickname correctly!--Modun (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Neither editor has exactly answered my questions. So I will restate them, almost exactly as I did.

First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [3] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one more question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages. So my second question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research?

User:Kwamikagami writes: We have a linguist working on Siberian languages, Tapani Salminen. Who is "we"?

Does User:Modun have any sources that they want to use?

Are there any other source questions? Does either editor want to make any other changes to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

For the first question, durably archived statements by experts in the field count as RS. As for the second, it isn't about other Siberian languages but about Siberian languages in general. A few are mentioned specifically, but the allography is not language-dependent.

'We' is us here.

Modun writes, 'in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs.' That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question.

Modun asks, 'I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets.' Simple: they have provided zero evidence that Nivx currently has two alphabets. That would be not just OR, but contrary to sources.

— kwami (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

As for the first source, in my opinion it is not precise enough to draw any conclusions. For example, in it Mr Yusupov, to whom Kwamikagami refers, emphasizes (I quote verbatim) "Technically, the use of ң is wrong.", which Tapani Salminen ignores. In my opinion, if we accept this link as a source, then we should use an additional clarifying source that in a specific spelling of a language such a replacement is acceptable, as you found out in the example of the Kildin Sámi language. Otherwise it will be OR.

There are no other sources except those presented. There are no more questions except for the above, and there are more questions except for correcting the wording in the paragraph. The wording is something like: "In addition to the alphabet used in the textbooks, native speakers use an alternative alphabet with the following letters ..." Or something like that.

P.S. "That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question." Well, that is, in other words, they are not considered as allographs.--Modun (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Neither editor has yet exactly answered my first question. So I will restate it, almost exactly as I did.

First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [4] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? The question appears to be whether this source is reliable in saying that the letters are allographs.

Maybe I don't understand the terminology, and I know that I don't know the Cyrillic alphabet(s), but I have some questions that might or might not be applicable. So my second question is for each of the editors to explain to me exactly what they mean by allographs.

As a minor point, Kwamikagami writes: For the first question, durably archived statements by experts in the field count as RS.. That is true, but that depends on how they have been archived. Reports by editors of comments by experts do not count as reliable sources. More precisely, they do not count as verifiable sources. Reports in newspapers, journals, or other reliable media of comments by experts do count as reliable sources. I was disputing what appeared to be their reports of conversations with experts.

I will also ask, perhaps because I don't have a background in the subject matter, what is meant by an alternative alphabet. Modun proposes wording such as:

In addition to the alphabet used in the textbooks, native speakers use an alternative alphabet with the following letters

. If there is an alternative alphabet, with the same number of letters as the primary alphabet, and most of the letters are the same in the two alphabets, but four of them are different, aren't the letters in the two alternative alphabets allographs? Are the letters with the hooks and the letters with the descenders, if those are how the letters differ, used in the same words, or in different words? Do the different letters represent different phonemes? Can both of two variant letters be used in the same word or sentence with a different meaning (in which case they are not alternative letters but more letters)? Are there any rules for when one variant letter is used or when the other one is used? Maybe these are ignorant questions, but the "alternative alphabet" argument sounds to me as though the letters in the different versions of the alphabet are allographs.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

The real issue for me is the lack of any source for Modun's claim that these are two different alphabets.

The expert's words are not based on a non-expert's recall. These are not reports of oral conversation, they are the actual words of the experts writing in, in their responses to other experts and copied and pasted from their emails. There's no more change involved than there would be with an author communicating with any other editor or publisher, where it's normal practice to write in and have them copy from your emails.

Yes, that would make them allographs. No, they are not used differently, nor in different words. The orthography is exactly the same, regardless of which forms are used, and can be handled by changing the font, as one linguist commented. The situation is analogous to using script (primer-style) 'a' and 'g' in English: you wouldn't claim that created an 'alternative English alphabet', and you wouldn't use the dedicated IPA letters for them, you'd just choose a font that styled ASCII 'a' and 'g' that way. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Modun repeats their claim that 'in the Kildin Sami language, the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered as allographs,' but again provides no source. Kildin does not distinguish those letters, so I don't see what the basis of the claim could possibly be, except that the round allograph Ӈ makes a better visual contrast to the similar letter Ӊ that Kildin does have.

For that argument to work, now Ң and Ӊ would have to be allographs, which contradicts Modun's underlying thesis that Cyrillic doesn't have allographs like these. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

In my understanding, an allograph is a sign/letter that is a variation of the same letter, slightly different in its appearance/design from each other. The problem is that most Cyrillic letters were accepted independently of each other in different languages, essentially denoting the same sounds. Nowhere and never was it stipulated that these Cyrillic letters are allographs of each other, but still they were all accepted as separate letters for different languages, and not variations of each other. This is not just "a different font". These letters are used in one font by the way and for some reason they do not change in any way. I would understand if one font had one letter and another variation of the letter was in another font. Sometimes, letters were specially accepted in different appearances to further emphasize the separateness of languages from each other (the Yakut and Dolgan languages can be an example).

The problem is that, apart from the source provided by user Kwamikagami, nowhere else is it stated that these letters are allographs of each other. And for some reason he can't provide another source where the same was stated.

Well, regarding your second question to me, this is just a suggested formulation that can be adjusted and which I explained a little higher. These are not allographs, but different letters, therefore different alphabets. There were cases when for some languages another version of the alphabet was adopted for the same composition of sounds, but with a different composition of letters replacing the old letters with others. Well, for some reason, both my sources and Kwamikagami's sources do not mix both variants of the letter set. On the contrary, they are systematically used separately, as two different alphabets! Yes, they denote the same letters, but in Cyrillic there are other letters that denote the same sounds, but for some reason, according to Kwamikagami, they are not considered allographs, but for some reason these ones are considered.That's the thing, we don't have any sources that explain why such a replacement happened. Honestly, I don't know why it happened. Let me repeat that although these Cyrillic letters were accepted for the same sounds, they were accepted as separate letters, not allographs.

In my opinion, the source is not reliable enough, because it declares the interchangeability of letters in all languages where they are used without considering each individual language and the possibility of replacement in specific languages. For example, in the Kildin Sami language, the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered as allographs--Modun (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by moderator (Nivkh)

I think that I have to restate the original question, and maybe another question with an additional question.

First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [5] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? The question appears to be whether this source is reliable in saying that the letters are allographs.

I will also restate a minor point. Statements by experts only are considered reliable sources if they are recorded in a reliable and verifiable record. I may have misunderstood, but I thought that one editor had referred to email reports that they had received from an expert. Those are not reliable sources unless the statement by the expert was published in a reliable medium. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I have not misunderstood the policies on reliable sources and verifiability.

If the editors do not give me concise clear answers to the first question, I will post a question at the reliable source noticeboard, but it should not be so difficult for the editors to answer my questions concisely. I have an opinion about the allographs and the alternative alphabets, but that would be original research. So we can only say that they are allographs if a reliable source says that they are allographs, and we can only say that they are alternative alphabets if a reliable source says that they are alternative alphabets.

If there are alternative alphabets, do they mostly have the same letters, or are there two completely different ways of writing the Nivkh language? If there are two alphabets that have mostly the same letters, how do the different letters differ from being allographs? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

No, the problem is not the reliability of the source.

The source is published and durably archived by Unicode. It is compiled from expert statements supplied to Unicode, in response to a request by Unicode for expert opinion about whether these letters are allographs. This is because allography is relevant to encoding: Unicode does not normally assign code points to allographs, and because of these expert responses, Unicode decided to not continue assigning code points to this duplicate set of letters.

Yes, the alternative ways of writing are identical apart from this variation, and whether the rsh (a letter used by no other language) is an er with a breve or with a caron. It's the same orthography: same rules, same letters apart from these: you can change one to the other with find-replace. There is no difference from these being allographs. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Can any correspondence be considered a reliable source? If so, in what form? For example, messages in email, messenger or any social network? Would the status or reputation of the people being rewritten in messages make any difference in the reliability of the source? And if it didn't exist? In this case, someone's work correspondence.--Modun (talk) 14:31, 01 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

The Reliable Source Noticeboard has given what I consider an inconclusive answer about the reliability of the source of the Unicode discussion. The respondent said that the document didn't refer to the Nivkh language, which I had also noted. It refers to Siberian languages in general, but Nivkh is not related to any other languages. I see a few possible ways forward.

First, are the other letters, except the four in question, the same in both versions of the Nivkh alphabet? If so, is it accurate to refer to alternative alphabets, or is it more accurate to refer to an alphabet with alternative letters? If one of you has a strict definition of allographs that does not include these letters, is there some other terminology that can be used instead?

Second, since Unicode may have made a mistake with those letters, are there alternate sources, in Russian, that either state that the four letters in question are interchangeable, or that they are not interchangeable?

Third, can a question be asked either at Talk:Nivkh languages or WikiProject Languages or WikiProject Russia for a third party opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

Whether a language is related is irrelevant. Basque isn't related to Spanish, but both use the same letters. Ukrainian and Belarusian is quite closely related to Russian, but they use different letters.

Again, all the other Nivkh letters are the same, apart from the curved and angular forms of the diacritic on er.

No, neither description ['alternative alphabets' nor 'an alphabet with alternative letters'] is accurate. This is the same alphabet with the same letters, just as the handwritten-style 'a', 'g' and 't' in English primers are not different letters, but graphic variants of a, gee and tee. Merriam-Webster defines 'allograph' as a letter of an alphabet in a particular shape, and that's what we have here.

Neither of us has been able to find a Russian source discussing the issue. It seems to be taken for granted. Imagine that we had someone insisting that handwritten-style 'a' 'g' 't' in English primers constituted a second English alphabet. It might be difficult to find an official source that they don't, because who would bother saying the obvious?

WikiProject Languages is probably the way to go. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

In any case, the rest of the letters are the same in both versions of the alphabet. We can say that additional versions of letters are alternative versions of each other, but not strictly allographs. For example, in Cyrillic there are other letters that are practically used for the same sounds, and I do not understand why Kwamikagami then insists that the letters in question are allographs, and other letters in Cyrillic for some reason are not allographs? What Kwamikagami says about allographs in the Latin alphabet is not entirely applicable to the Cyrillic alphabet, because in the Latin alphabet these allographs DEVELOPED from versions of letters of existing letters, and in Cyrillic they were strictly originally designed for specific languages. Unfortunately, I did not find a source in Russian explaining why this interchange of letters was actually allowed and to what extent it was acceptable? In principle, for native speakers, both versions of the letters are mutually understandable (as would be the case if there was a replacement for other versions of the letters).

I think if they had asked, it seems to me the result would have been the same.--Modun (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Maybe some progress has been made, if there is agreement that there is one Cyrillic Nivkh alphabet with alternative letters. If there is disagreement over the use of the term allographs, then maybe that is a terminological disagreement. If so, can the editors work together to develop a compromise statement? Are you willing to work together to try to develop a compromise statement that states what the alphabet is and that there are alternative letters for certain phonemes? That is a yes or no question, although a draft compromise would be welcome.

Also, should I request a third opinion from WikiProject Languages? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

Not as you worded it, because according to the only references we have, your summary is incorrect. These are not alternative letters for certain phonemes. There are alternative Unicode characters, because Unicode has spuriously encoded graphic variants as if they were separate letters, but that's a Unicode thing and only a side note to the nature of the alphabet.

I'm happy to work on compromise wording, as long as that reflects our sources as required by WP:RS and other WP safeguards for NPOV editing. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Yes, I agree to continue working on a compromise option. We can try, as you said, to ask for someone's third opinion. It wouldn't hurt.--Modun (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Kwamikagami has requested a third opinion from WikiProject Languages. While they are waiting for a third opinion, I will encourage the editors to propose and discuss compromise wordings.

What Unicode script is used to represent the Cyrillic Nivkh alphabet?

This question may or may not be important, but is there an opinion being expressed that the Unicode consortium may have made a mistake in assigning distinct characters for different forms of the letters in question in the Nivkh alphabet? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

The script is just 'Cyrl'.

Yes, there has been a conclusion that encoding these characters was a mistake. However, AFAIK there hasn't been any talk about formally deprecating them. Meanwhile, writers need to be aware of the fact that written Nivkh will differ on which encoding choices are made, and that search engines, alphabetization and the like will need to treat them as being the same letters [that is, as allographs] or else there will be problems with data processing. Unless Unicode formally deprecates the rounded characters, and Nivkh/Siberian fonts accommodate by rendering the ticked letters with the desired rounded forms, there will be continual problems with typesetting and data storage. That's one reason it should be made clear in our article that these are allographs.

Here is my proposed wording of the article. There are several things that Modun does not contest, so I suggest we implement those while the discussion on the rest continues. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Honestly, I would not like to comment on the activities of any organization. I think it is not within the competence of any third-party organization to tell any people in what form the alphabet of their language "should be" for purely their own bureaucratic or technical reasons. Actually, we are not satisfying the considerations of any organization here, but working with actual sources of one kind or another.

It seems that I have already roughly imagined in what possible formulation the text could be presented, I would like to see in what formulation Kwamikagami would like to present this.--Modun (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wudu

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nasserb786 on 11:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Wudu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Nasserb786 (talk · contribs)
Abo_Yemen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On June 25, 2024‎ Abo Yemen deleted content from article Wudu. The content has been there since before February 2, 2016. Since February 2, 2016 there have been approximately 500 edits from multiple users and the content has remained.

I have tried to add back this content and Abo Yemen keeps reverting. Note i have been thanked by user Phefeni for adding the old content back.

Abo Yemen view is as below these are references, not text that should be part of the main article. Plus most of them are redundant and really.. useless since there are other sources already. Ill try to include them if it's needed tho dont worry I dont see how including all the views of the 5 scholars is needed. Only one is enough adding useless info before 8 years doesn't make it credible. this article survived on wikipedia for 10 years but that doesn't make it real.

My view is as below The reason you we should include the 5 scholars is to show transparency and the reference to reliable publications support the content that Wikipedia contains so readers can verify the facts at source. The article needs to distinguish clearly between the translation of wiping and washing the feet which has been translated by famous scholars noted with links Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali. All these scholars have wiki pages associated to them.

I have clearly identified the item that needs to be restored on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Wudu#Restoration_of_an_old_version_of_the_article

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

the removed content too be added back and protect this part of the content from future attack's.

Summary of dispute by Abo_Yemen

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

Starting on 14:09, 16 June 2024 I have started doing some copy-edits to the wudu article with the goal of trying to promote the article to GA class by removing every useless, uninformative, and un-encyclopedic stuff in order to make the article more useful and readable.

Now Nasserb786, who as he claims wants to add the names of translators of the quran for some reason (which is based on his original research btw instead of adding sources), kept on reverting the article to this version that he have wrote back in 2016 (and this version is the one where he added the name of the 5th translator) instead of actually adding the part that he claimed that he wanted to add to the article and did so by edit warring by reverting the article to his 2016 edit and after reverting his edits he started using my talkpage for discussing his restoration of the old and bad version of the article 3 times [6] [7] [8] with each time i've told him to discuss his edits on the article's talk page.

The rest of the "dispute" happened on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article Abo Yemen ✉ 13:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wudu discussion

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

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abo Yemen does not want me to use his talk page and rather use the talk page under the article. Nasserb786 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a reason to start a dispute resolution. If you want to start a discussion in a user talkpage then it should be in yours and not mine Abo Yemen ✉ 16:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note Abo Yemen has been notified on the wudu talk page. Nasserb786 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon isn't this considered canvassing? Abo Yemen ✉ 18:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by moderator (Wudu)

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion, if the editors are ready. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to these discussion rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask questions, and you are asked to address your answers to the moderator and the community.

Notice to another editor must be on their user talk page. Notice on an article talk page is not sufficient. A notice not to post to the user talk page of another editor should be honored, with a very few exceptions, and one of them is that noticeboard notices must be placed on the user talk page, and an editor is required and permitted to put such notices on a user talk page, even if they have otherwise been told not to post to that page. However, Abo Yemen has made a statement here, and notice is not required to an editor who has made a statement here. So discussion can begin.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state concisely what changes they wish to make to the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what changes the other editor wants to make that they want to leave the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the rules and I agree to them.

Nasser wants to add the names of 5 translators of one single source to the verse from Al-Ma'idah which I don't see how it would be of use in an article about ritual washing. He also wants to include 7 sources but instead of putting them in a citation he wants them to be in the main text of the article, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of the MOS. Abo Yemen ✉ 05:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the rules and I agree to them. Thank you for moderating

For background on difficulty of Arabic translation please refer to Arabic_machine_translation and Classical_Arabic.

This article Wudu is based on the translation of the verse from the Quran specifically verse Qur'an 5:6.

There are two views on the translation of this verse "wiping' and "washing" of the feet which are observed by Shia and Sunni Muslims respectively.

The content I am asking to include is Under the section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims===

According to Sunni Muslims, the Qur'anic mandate for wuḍūʾ comes in the sixth ayat of sura 5. The ayat has been translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali as follows. Note that this translation refers to washing the feet.

O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete His favour to you, that ye may be grateful.
— Al-Ma'ida, Sura 5, Ayah 6^[1]

Washing both the feet once up to and including the ankles. It's not sufficient for one to pass wet hand over the feet or shoes. Under certain conditions masah can be done over leather socks known as khuffs.^[2]

Narrated by Abd-Allah ibn Amr: "...we were just passing wet hands over our feet (not washing them thoroughly) so he addressed us in a loud voice saying twice or thrice, 'Save your heels from the fire.'."^[3]
Narrated by 'Ubaid Ibn Juraij: "...and he used to perform ablution while wearing the shoes (i.e. wash his feet and then put on the shoes)."^[4]
Narrated by Yahya Al-Mazini: " 'Can you show me how Allah's Apostle used to perform ablution?' ...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."^[5]
Narrated by 'Amr: "...and then he washed his feet up to the ankles."^[6]
Narrated by Humran: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."^[7]
Narrated by 'Amr bin Yahya: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."^[8]
Narrated by 'Abdullah bin Zaid: "...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."^[9]

The reason we should include the scholars is to show transparency, support to the translation of washing the feet and reference to reliable publications to support the content the article contains so readers can verify the facts at source.

To include the content of the snippets of the sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad further collaborates the translation of washing the feet and adds support to the content.

This make this section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims=== similar to ===Farā'id according to Shia Muslims=== and distinguish clearly between the translation of "wiping" and "washing" the feet.

There are many ways to format content in the article and I am open to how that is done, as long as the content is included so readers can preform there own research and verify the facts at source. Nasserb786 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (Wudu)

User:Nasserb786, User:Abo Yemen - Inviting an editor who has made 4 edits and has not edited the page in question appears to be meatpuppetry. Inviting editors who have participated in a discussion to come to DRN is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking each editor to state concisely what changes they wish to make to the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what changes the other editor wants to make that they want to leave the same.

First statements by editors (Wudu)

For background on difficulty of Arabic translation please refer to Arabic_machine_translation and Classical_Arabic.

This article Wudu is based on the translation of the verse from the Quran specifically verse Qur'an 5:6.

There are two views on the translation of this verse "wiping' and "washing" of the feet which are observed by Shia and Sunni Muslims respectively.

The content I am asking to include is Under the section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims===

According to Sunni Muslims, the Qur'anic mandate for wuḍūʾ comes in the sixth ayat of sura 5. The ayat has been translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali as follows. Note that this translation refers to washing the feet.

O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete His favour to you, that ye may be grateful.
— Al-Ma'ida, Sura 5, Ayah 6^[1]

Washing both the feet once up to and including the ankles. It's not sufficient for one to pass wet hand over the feet or shoes. Under certain conditions masah can be done over leather socks known as khuffs.^[10]

Narrated by Abd-Allah ibn Amr: "...we were just passing wet hands over our feet (not washing them thoroughly) so he addressed us in a loud voice saying twice or thrice, 'Save your heels from the fire.'."^[11]
Narrated by 'Ubaid Ibn Juraij: "...and he used to perform ablution while wearing the shoes (i.e. wash his feet and then put on the shoes)."^[12]
Narrated by Yahya Al-Mazini: " 'Can you show me how Allah's Apostle used to perform ablution?' ...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."^[13]
Narrated by 'Amr: "...and then he washed his feet up to the ankles."^[14]
Narrated by Humran: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."^[7]
Narrated by 'Amr bin Yahya: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."^[15]
Narrated by 'Abdullah bin Zaid: "...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."^[16]

The reason we should include the scholars is to show transparency, support to the translation of washing the feet and reference to reliable publications to support the content the article contains so readers can verify the facts at source.

To include the content of the snippets of the sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad further collaborates the translation of washing the feet and adds support to the content.

This make this section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims=== similar to ===Farā'id according to Shia Muslims=== and distinguish clearly between the translation of "wiping" and "washing" the feet.

There are many ways to format content in the article and I am open to how that is done, as long as the content is included so readers can preform there own research and verify the facts at source.

Zeroth statements by editors (Wudu)

Second statement by moderator (Wudu)

User:Nasserb786 has provided a paragraph, and I think that they are saying that they want to add it to the article in the section on Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims. Are they asking to add it to the existing section, or to replace the existing section with it?

Does User:Abo Yemen agree to that addition? If not, do they have any other changes that they want to make, or do they want to leave the section unchanged? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no i do not agree to that addition because there is no reason to include all those translator names and the 7 sources inline instead of putting them in a ref tag. Abo Yemen ✉ 05:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Nasserb786

Yes, its to add back this content that was in place since February 2, 2016. This content was removed by Abo Yemen on June 25, 2024.

Second statement by Abo Yemen

Third statement by moderator (Wudu)

Are the seven quotes that Nasserb786 wants to include actually seven versions or translations of the same original? Is that what this dispute is about? What is the reason for including seven versions of the same hadith?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by Nasserb786

Question. Are the seven quotes that Nasserb786 wants to include actually seven versions or translations of the same original? Answer. No. These are 7 separate hadiths Each with their own reference number.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 164
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 167
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 185
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 186
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 161
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 190
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 196

Question. Is that what this dispute is about? Answer. No. Dispute is to add back the content that Abo Yemen keeps removing. The are are 2 content sections that need to be added back. 1 Content referring to the scholars who have translated the verse to washing the feet. The reason we should include the scholars is to show transparency, support to the translation of washing the feet and reference to reliable publications to support the content the article contains so readers can verify the facts at source.

2 Content referring to the 7 separate hadiths. See reason below

Question. What is the reason for including seven versions of the same hadith? Answer. To include the content of the 7 different snippets of the sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad further collaborates the translation of washing the feet and adds support to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by Abo Yemen

Fourth statement by moderator (Wudu)

It appears that one of the editors wishes to include seven hadiths about washing the feet that appear to say the same thing, probably because they are seven different translations of the same original. Is that correct? If so, is there any other dispute?

If the issue is the inclusion of seven hadiths that repeat the same statement, then please explain why, in your opinion, the inclusion is supported by or is not supported by the principle of balance.

If this discussion does not resolve the dispute, we should probably request a third opinion from WikiProject Islam on the question of due weight and balance.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by Nasserb786

Fourth statement by Abo Yemen

References

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.

15.ai

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Ltbdl on 15:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

15.ai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

the dispute is whether 15.ai is abandoned or not.

15.ai is an ai text-to-speech program that has been down for ~19 months. the article said that 15.ai was under maintenance until thought 1915 edited the article to say 15.ai was abandoned, and rocketknightx edited the article back to the status quo. i and rocketknightx edit warred over this, and i apologize for that.

those who support saying that 15.ai is abandoned include myself, thought 1915, and superstain. those who support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance include rocketknightx and vexvector.

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

Talk:15.ai § Editing with respect to the last two topics of Past Tense

Talk:15.ai § The project is not abandoned.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

by determining whether the article on 15.ai should say it is operational or abandoned.

Summary of dispute by Thought 1915

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

I am so sorry if this comes off as biased or too casual; this is my first time having disputes happen. After seeing multiple talk pages in the article that suggested changing the article to past tense, I applied the change. This, seemingly, started an edit war against one who wanted to revert my change and those who were fine with my change. Talk topics have been attempted to solve this issue, one started by me after realizing that an edit war may occur without intervention. At this point, the reasoning for keeping the site in the present tense and not calling the site abandoned is that there are not enough citations and a sentiment that the site could come back up. This sentiment is only felt by one editor, as everybody else involved that I see listed in this dispute holds the opposite opinion. The opposite opinion that has been quite common among the editors involved is that the site indeed has been abandoned. This is because of a lack of contact for over 18 months, the domain being used to host completely unrelated projects (see tf2[dot]15[dot]ai), and the fact that multiple other sites allegedly made by 15 (see pony[dot]best) have been found. After third-party intervention, a decision to stop editing until a consensus was reached occurred. Some of the editors claim that RocketKnightX may have a bias that prevents neutrality in the article. Checking RocketKnightX's user contributions can help a third party conclude this general sentiment. There is one point I would like to highlight in this dispute: there has been no contact or mention of 15[dot]ai for more than a year; the site no longer appears on a search engine. If we were to classify the site as abandoned or under maintenance, how would it be cited? Would the amount of time without any contact and the usage of the domain for different projects be enough to consider the site abandoned? Once again, I apologize for any bias in my statement.

Summary of dispute by RocketKnightX

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

Okay. So, 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned 15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." They tried to mean that the project was not abandoned and is in under maintenance, but some people still not convinced due to waiting too long. The only reason why the project isn't up is that it needs to be perfect, as quality is more important than quantity.

Summary of dispute by SuperStain

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

My involvement in this dispute began some months ago when I noticed that an editor had been reverting edits made to the 15.ai page that could be interpreted as painting the website in a negative light. After noticing these edits, I took it upon myself to clean up the page, removing irrelevant and potentially biased passages, fixing certain spelling errors and adding archived references. A few months later, I returned to the article's talk page to provide insight into a discussion being held on the status of 15.ai, some of which now serves as the foundation for arguments in favour of classifying the website as abandoned. A few weeks later, I checked on the article again and found that an edit war had arisen between two editors, one believing the site to be abandoned and the other holding out hope for the site's return. Feeling that 15.ai had been down for long enough to justify classifying the website as abandoned, I edited parts of the page in order to counteract revisions made to label the site as "under maintenance". Conscious of potential 3RR violations, I made sure to limit myself to two of these edits before moving on with my day. Echoing Thought 1915's feelings, I believe RocketKnightX to be biased in favour of 15.ai. However, I also feel that another editor, HackerKnownAs, who I alluded to previously in my statement, to hold similar biases, as their account was created the same day as many of the articles sourced, and their contribution history seems to be comprised exclusively of edits made to protect the website's image and to remove mentions of competing websites/15.ai's ongoing downtime. I feel the best course of action here would be to classify 15.ai as abandoned, and to investigate the article's overall edit history to determine how much of this page was written with bias.

Summary of Dispute by VexVector

To be clear, I do not, “support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance”. This is a misrepresentation of my involvement. I merely added a citation-needed tag to the claim that the site was abandoned, and reverted an edit which removed the tag without resolving the need for it. If the site is claimed to be abandoned, then it should be a claim which is cited or explained somehow. The page did not have any rationale for considering it abandoned. What is the cut-off point? Is there præexisting policy on this matter? An explanation is all I ask for, along with the explanation being included on the public page.

15.ai discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (15.ai)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this content dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you are willing to follow the ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise.

It appears that the main question is whether to characterize the web site as abandoned or defunct, or whether to characterize it as under maintenance. Is that correct? In Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources have said, including about the (lack of) availability of the site. So my first question to the editors is whether they can refer to any reliable sources that comment on the status of the web site. If so, please identify the source(s).

The purpose of dispute resolution, including moderated discussion, is to improve the article. So my second question is whether there are any other portions or sections of the article that you want to change that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or any portions of the article that you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in what the main question is about the categorization of the website as either abandoned/defunct or under maintenance.

Directly answering your first question, we were unable to find specifically reliable sources regarding the status of 15[dot]ai. We do have alledged sites made by 15, tweets that 15 had said about the status (and an implied release timeframe that has already passed), and the current usage of the domain 15[dot]ai under tf2[dot]15[dot]ai, but I assume that these do not qualify as reliable sources.

As for your second question, a new talk topic on the page asked whether the CMU Dictionary section of the page was necessary, although the topic is too new for any consensus to be formed yet.

If any editors have information that contradicts my statement, please correct me. I may make mistakes by accident. Thought 1915 (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to answer you on the first point, sorry. I will, to my best knowledge, try to follow the stated ground rules. Please let me know if I made a mistake though. Thought 1915 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can follow the ground rules. i have nothing to add to thought 1915's summary. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally very much think that 15.ai has definitely been abandoned and the article needs to be updated. It's not gotten any changes within the last few months and I haven't seen any updates about it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits!

11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (15.ai)

First statement by moderator (15.ai)

If reliable sources do not say that the web site has been abandoned, we should not say that the web site has been abandoned, but we can state what the reliable sources report about the status of the web site. Stating that it has been abandoned would be original research. However, stating that it is under maintenance would also be original research unless that has been reported by a reliable source.

Is there any disagreement about any other content issue? Are there any continuing issues about how to report the status of the web site? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This goes in tandem with considering the site abandoned, but, the tense of the article seemed to be disputed. I placed it under past tense under the suggestion of the talk topics above me; the story of how that went is the same as considering the site abandoned.

As there have been no reliable sources on both considering the site abandoned or under maintenance, I wonder how it should be classified under these circumstances. Thought 1915 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's very hard to find an actual reference that would document that the site is abandoned. We might need to do a ^{[citation needed]} instead. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits!

11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with this. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Anyone else up for ^{[citation needed]} in place of a reference? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits!

00:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} with what? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's hard to find a reference, it might just be easier to put a ^{[citation needed]} in place of it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits!

11:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

placing a ^{[citation needed]} next to "is" is a little silly. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is we just need to find some way to incorporate saying that the 15.ai platform has been abandoned, and write a ^{[citation needed]} at the end. I don't really care how it is placed, I guess it just needs to follow WP:MOS Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits!

11:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (15.ai)

Second statement by moderator (15.ai)

Is there agreement now that the web site should be reported as abandoned, and that a {{citation needed}} note should be used for that statement? If so, do we have agreement, and is this issue resolved? If not, please state what the remaining disagreement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reporting the site as abandoned and simply placing a *citation needed tag* is appropriate. I know of one editor who may oppose this decision, but said editor has not participated in any part of this dispute discussion yet. If I see that the majority of editors also share this sentiment, I feel that we could then talk about how to properly edit the site as abanoned and properly placing a *citation needed tag*. Thought 1915 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they’ll definitely oppose this decision, but i agree to this. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only think of one singular editor who may oppose this. May you please elaborate? Thought 1915 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

singular they ltbdl☃ (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I apologise for the confusion. Should we wait for their confirmation, or should something else be done? Thought 1915 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll notify them again, let's see if they answer. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Im the person who proposed the ^{[citation needed]} replacement. We could for example place in the text, like this:

As of date, it is unknown if 15.ai is abandoned or not, as no activity has been seen in a long time. ^{[citation needed]}

(this is an example only)

in the event that it may not be suitable to just blatantly place a ^{[citation needed]}, To prove that this is abandoned, since we can't add original research as of WP:NOR, we might be able to use discussion threads as seen on Reddit and these other websites. I have provided the links to them below.

In my opinion, this one below might be the best as it is independent.You should still see the above references.

Link 6. I definitely think that a reliable source is needed, so here are some examples if the ^{[citation needed]} is not appropriate. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits!

02:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that the referenced sites may not seem reliable, but I might be wrong. I feel more comfortable with using the *citation needed tag*. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Keep me updated if we see any good references. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits!

00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (15.ai)

Hypnosis

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Skalidrisalba on 18:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Hypnosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I proposed a new edit with a new reference that I found more relevant (the old reference was not about hypnosis) and less misleading. Because my reference was published in a journal called "complementary therapies in clinical practices", many users started associating the term "complementary" to "alternative medicine" (as in medicine that is not based on evidence) without checking if the journal is actually following a rigorous and accepted method. I am partially responsible for that because I didn't know "alternative" implied the lack of evidence and I erroneously called the journal I was referring to as "alternative". Users started trying to remove old references that contained that word that would, according to them, discredit the whole methodology

Please help, I feel like I've just triggered a wave of people who start discarding information and references simply because they use certain words they don't like...

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypnosis#Compromise_on_the_claim_that_hypnosis_is_pseudoscience

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm new to being an editor, so I don't know specifically what you can and cannot do. But simply a message to remind users that a word used in the name of a journal is not enough to discredit a reference... And to ask them to provide elements that are specific to the reference and that discredit it instead of relying on generalizations.

Summary of dispute by Bon courage

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

Summary of dispute by Psychologist Guy

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

Summary of dispute by HandThatFeeds

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

Hypnosis discussion

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

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on the user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Algeria

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Monsieur Patillo on 13:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Monsieur Patillo (talk · contribs)
Skitash (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

During a previous DRN then RFC it was ultimately decided not to put anything in infobox. However, the plurality of sources should be able to be found in the Section on ethnic groups in the body of the article Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 248. During which the following commitment was made: Ninth statement by moderator (Algeria) If I'm correct, we agreed that the body of the article will contain both sources, and the only issue remaining is what should be included in the infobox. There are three options: 1. The current state: 75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers, 1% others 2. 99% Amazigh-Berber, 1% other 3. Nothing.

However Skitash blocked the article. There is no counterproposal from him because he seems satisfied with the current version which contains a POV: the ethnicity of the Algerians would be linked to a medieval Arab migration and not the Arabization of the natives.

This is a guiding idea that we find in his contributions: - Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Demographics, where demography is linked to Arab migrations (and not the Arabization of locals).

- Algerians#Ethnic_groups

Without respect to WP:NPOV, Skitash repeatedly pushes an editorial that could mislead the reader and make him believe that the population of Algeria and the Maghreb came from a migration from the Arab peninsula. If he concedes in the discussions that he is basing himself on ethnicity, he prevents any addition specifying that it is the Berbers who have become Arabized and that certain sources speak of Berber ethnicity or Arab-Berber to favor only the vision of a majority Arab ethnicity and without nuance.

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

Talk:Algeria#Blocking_the_article_(infobox_and_ethnic_group_section) : Following the previous review I opened the discussion when Skitash deleted my modifications. I reminded him of his commitments in the previous DRN, without success. I asked him to formulate a counterproposal without response from him...

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help resolve the argument by: - recalling the terms of the previous mediation andfind common ground with a formulation that takes into account the plurality of sources - sort by identifying serious academic sources on the subject -avoid WP:OR (the majority of Arabs come from Arab migrations), and WP:UNDUE, to restore academic information on the subject (Arabization of indigenous Berber populations, an element that Skitash makes a point of concealing) .

Summary of dispute by Skitash

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

Algeria discussion

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

Hello! Non-volunteer here. I would like to point out that this person, Skitash, is also in a dispute with me over the same subject, the inclusion of Amazigh/Berber content and the attempt to keep things unbiased[9] and also [10]. He seems to be making a strong effort to portray anything related to Amazigh as anti-Arab, turning the inclusion of their language under MOS:LEADLANG into an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND. This isn’t the first time he has been in disputes with multiple people due to his bias and hostile approach toward articles related to Berbers, including his violation of WP:NPOV. For instance, in his revision of Berberism, he frames the movement as anti-Arab, as seen in this revision: [11]. This kind of bias is evident throughout the page, with much of the writing coming from Skitash himself." TahaKahi (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The DRN is not a settling of scores. It is about dealing with a particular article (Algeria) and not talking about other subjects (languages, Berberism, etc.). Kind regards, Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tuner (radio)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Andrevan on 20:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Tuner (radio) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Andrevan (talk · contribs)
Kvng (talk · contribs)
Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Are WP:GALLERY and other images appropriate to illustrate the progress and development of tuners over time and their varying design considerations?

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

Talk:Tuner_(radio)#Image_gallery

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Users are arguing policy that doesn't exist or doesn't apply. I am trying to improve the article and these editors are throwing weight around without a sane rational basis to remove good faith improvements.

Summary of dispute by Kvng

WP:GALLERY is clear that these are generally undesirable. Andrevan claims that the gallery documents the development of tuners but I don't immediately get that from the pictures or captions. If we're going to try to tell that story, we need improvements but I'm not convinced telling this story is important and may introduce an WP:UNDUE issue. There is already a Commons link where these images can be perused by readers. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr

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

Andrevan seems to be unaware of consensus guidelines on image use in articles,in this case adding 10 redundant[12] images of radio tuner face-plates, some scattered across unrelated sections. Trying to explan that Wikipedia is not a repository of images and that they should have MOS:PERTINENCE, be placed in context and against descriptive text, and be readable at thumbnail resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the part of Andrevan [13] [14] and reverts of any attempted improvement [15]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuner (radio) discussion

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Tuner)

I am ready to try to act as the moderator for discussion of this content dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion, as of any dispute resolution procedure, is to improve the article (not to address the conduct of the editors). Please state that you agree to follow the rules for the discussion. It appears that the main issue, or maybe the only issue, has to do with images. It seems that one editor wants to include a large number of images in the article, and two other editors disagree with the inclusion of the images. The editors have already referred to the image use policy and in particular the policy on image galleries, but please read it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first question is: Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?

My second question is: Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?

My third and fourth questions are about the images. Third, are all of the images in Commons? If not, what is their copyright and fair use status? Fourth, will each editor please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images? Address all of your answers to the moderator (me) and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Tuner)

The dispute is about the number of images and their MOS:PERTINENCE to the content.
I'm not aware of any other content dispute.
All images are in Commons and I don't know of any fair use issues.

~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?

Yes, Images unreadable at thumb MOS:IMAGEQUALITY --:> showing the subject too small... so Yamaha T-420, Onkyo T-4000 are too small - unreadable at thumb.

Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?

No

Are all of the images in Commons?

Yes

Please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images?

WP:IMAGEPOL - WP:IG is pretty clear:

A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article - This is a shoehorn per adding editors own statement.

a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. This is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject, no way to discern one from the other or why they are there, and no way to improve the images - they are generally unreadable.other than looking like a tuner (and some of them don't even look like a tuner). And they are already in the Wikimedia Commons.

cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images Text already describes the evolution of Tuners and, per the current text, two images are all you need: an image of tuner vacuum tubes, an image of tuner transistors.

Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made These images do not collectively add to the reader's understanding because they are barely readable and repetitive so no contrast or comparison can be made.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, the issue is about the images. 2. No, there is no other dispute other than the value of the images and image gallery and whether it is telling a useful story or illustrating something useful. 3. All images are on Commons and there are no issues with copyright. 4. Basically my argument hinges on such text in WP:GALLERY as A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images...Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made....Images should be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery...Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., Lily), fashion (e.g., Wedding dress), and the visual arts (e.g., Oil painting). Others do not My argument is that these images are not, as has been claimed, blurry, dark, unreadable, low quality, or redundant. They are clear illustrations of what a Tuner is and what a Tuner has looked like. They are selected to show a good cross-section of different images - front and back, inside and outside, Japanese, German, American, analog, digital, wood, metal, plastic, tube, solid state, etc. It is not necessary to be able to read the writing or the numbers, as those do not contribute to anything useful that isn't explained in the article itself. The point of the images is to illustrate consumer electronics and digital products industrial design. The arguments made don't hold up to scrutiny regarding the images or the policy or the consensus. Originally, I had placed the images all as thumbnails alongside the text, but I changed it to a gallery as many other articles do. There is no blanket consensus not to place these useful images, as has been claimed. If a specific image is perceived to be problematic, we could find a replacement or remove that one, but I do not see that overall, the criticisms that have been rendered on the images are policy-based or justifiable. Andre🚐 02:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The galleries in the examples given in green text contribute to the article in specific ways. In Tuner (radio), the gallery is just dropped at the end of an already overloaded section. It may turn out that a gallery is a good thing to have in an improved version of the article. Per WP:DEMOLISH I'm not actually opposed to retaining it if that's where we're heading (I do, however, have some skepticism about how well that will work out) but I don't yet see the beginnings of any of that in the text. The only hints that this may be coming are talk page statements from Andrevan and inclusion of dates and countries in the gallery captions. If Andrevan can show us a source or two we can use to back the story of tuner development, that would help convince me that this direction has some promise. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (Tuner)

It appears that one editor wants to include a gallery of images of radio tuners, and two other editors disagree. I am asking each editor to provide a revised statement of why they think that the image gallery either is consistent with the policy on images or is not consistent with it. If there is no agreement, we will develop a Request for Comments on the yes-no question of whether to include the gallery in the article. So, in preparing your statement, develop a statement that will be included in the RFC for the attention of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other content issues?

First statements by editors (Tuner)

Jessica Nabongo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Log6849129 on 09:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Jessica Nabongo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Edits to this page are being reverted and covered with incorrect information that can be proved with a simple Google search. The sources I provided are being called self-sourced, including the websites of TEDx, The Detroit News, iucncongress2020.org, https://www.whitehouse.gov.

Bibliography is also removed, even the the subject is a published author, and the publisher is a mainstream publisher (National Geographic). There are articles about it all over the internet, including websites like the Washington Post, Good Morning America, BBC, Conde Nast traveler and more.

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

Talk:Jessica_Nabongo#Note to admins wandering through

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Revert latest edits

Summary of dispute by Valereee

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

Summary of dispute by ToBeFree

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

Jessica Nabongo 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.

Wolf

– New discussion.

Filed by Nagging Prawn on 09:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Wolf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I attempted to add a sentence on the Wolf Wikipedia page citing a report from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of one wolf eating 181 Payette's Short-Winged Grasshoppers. Unfortunately, I encountered unexpected resistance, despite there having been no such disputes regarding this report in the citing literature. I was told to bring it up to the talk page, which I did. I was told to justify my edit, which I tried to do, citing precedent for similar dietary detail in other Wikipedia articles. An anonymous user concurred that it seemed worthy of inclusion, but I did not receive a rebuttal. After waiting for several weeks, I believed the support from a third party and lack of response otherwise might justify reverting the reversion. However, my edit was reverted again. Upon requesting reasons why this occurred on the talk page, I was told there was no context for the fact I was trying to add to the article. However, the citation provides this context, and upon mentioning this I received no response. After some days, I tried again to add this fact to the article, but after a few more days it was reverted again, with no new arguments given. As far as I can tell, this edit does not violate Wikipedia guidelines, so I am at a loss.

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

I was told to open a topic about this on the Wolf talk page, so I acquiesced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolf#Including_a_note_about_a_paper_reporting_a_lone_wolf_that_ate_181_grasshoppers When objections were raised, I made good faith attempts to address them in this topic.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Hopefully, I would like to be able to add this observation to the article, as it is such a surprising report. It neatly demonstrates the dietary breadth mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded this edit. Failing that, I would like robust reasons why this should be excluded. I hope moderation can encourage either the addition of this fact or meaningful dialogue about why it shouldn't be added.

Summary of dispute by Wolverine_XI

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

Summary of dispute by Moxy

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

Wolf discussion

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

USA

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2806:2F0:A700:F275:7C5E:A0B8:369A:3A72 on 15:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This user keeps on changing the info of the lord of the rings war of rohirrim and he won’t stop editing. I trying to fix the info but he keeps coming back.please do something to temporarily block him or something

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

The distribution section in the lord of the rings war of the rohirrim

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By blocking Adamstom.97 temporary?

Summary of dispute by Adamstom.97

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

USA 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.

Barb horse

– New discussion.

Filed by TahaKahi on 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Barb horse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

TahaKahi (talk · contribs)
M.Bitton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I reworked the page of the Barb horse, adding more information. However, another user, User:M.Bitton, seems to have issues with the content I added, as well as some elements that existed before my additions, which became problematic after my edits. This is evident from his edit reasoning, where he claims it falls under MOS:FORLANG. If you read it, you’ll see that before he started reverting various parts of the article, the Tamazight/Berber language was allowed to be there—it is present in almost every translation of the page that includes second languages, and has been in the English wiki since 2016. He has also removed anything related to the original breeders, as seen in this edit [16]. He continued to revert several times, as can be seen in [17]. these issues primarily relate to earlier revisions, not my own.

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

I attempted to resolve on the talk page, but out of concern for starting an edit war, and due to his lack of proper engagement with me in the discussion, as shown in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk

October_2024], and removing the warning in his talk page that was removed, adding a strange comment to the reasoning [18] I chose to hope we could reach a proper dispute resolution through a third party.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An outsider view of the issue will greatly help decide on the subject, as we both have different opinions on how the article should be.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton

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

Barb horse discussion

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

[almaidia-1] Quran 5:6

[2] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:182

[3] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:164

[4] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:167

[5] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:185

[6] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:186

[buk161-7] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:161

[8] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:190

[9] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:196

[10] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:182

[11] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:164

[12] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:167

[13] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:185

[14] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:186

[15] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:190

[16] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:196

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards