Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 117

Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Disagreement of over salvageable text that was deleted and hidden from history record as well as other reversions. Disagreement over application of 'try to fix it' guidelines. Adversarial rather than cooperative behavior based on a dislike of "single goal accounts", regardless of content value that may well be salvageable, as grounds for total deletion and hiding of history. The introduction to the page was also altered without any reason.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted inquiries with other members, posted on the talk page explaining my position, and asked for a 3rd party opinion. I also offered to continue dialoguing and tag or move the deleted material.

How do you think we can help?

I am not of the opinion that total deletion and hiding of the material was justified or that it was in accordance with the guidelines on 'trying to fix' or the spirit of wikipedia which I thought is to improve and contribute, preferably collaboratively, rather than delete. I would like the deleted material restored somewhere so that it can be built up to a proper standard of citations rather than unilaterally deleted and hidden.

Summary of dispute by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The article is a long term target of SPAs and socks utilizing it as an advertising platform.

I think the biggest issues here are that Paulydee hasnt yet figured out how page history works and that their first responses appear to be casting aspersions about other editor's motives- neither of which are appropriately addressed in this forum -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and does anyone else hear that awful loud quacking noise?   --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved AndyTheGrump
This piqued my curiosity, so I decided to take a look. And I can see no evidence that anything has been "hidden from the history record" of the Osgoode Hall Law School article - substantial quantities of material have been removed in editing, but are still entirely accessible in the history. If material had been RevDel'd the history would provide a record of the fact, even if the material was no longer there. I have to suggest therefore that Paulydee is mistaken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Yunshui
Just on the back of Andy's comment above, I can (using my magical admin goggles) confirm that there are no deleted versions of the page, no deleted revisions, and no suppressed revisions in the page history. Nothing is hidden; every edit that has ever been made to the page is readily available. I recommend Paulydee read Help:Page history, and probably that he withdraw this request. Yunshui 雲 水 14:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Orangemike
I suspect that Paulydee's limited experience here leads them to false conclusions, although the lack of an assumption of good faith on the part of other editors is definitely not helping. Nonetheless: we have clear expectations for this kind of list, and are just asking that they be met. There is no deadline for the addition of such a list. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Thanks for the clarification about the history. I plan on working on the citations for the deleted list. However, I am still not understanding how the deletion is justified in the first place and why the Notable Alumni list justifiably remains deleted while I or others work on the citations. It seems to be contrary to the wikipedia guidelines as stated in several places. Contrary to what my friend OrangeMike suggested (am I misunderstanding notability?) the list was made up of clearly notable people. It was also easily verifiable with reliable sources. The wiki guidelines seem to state that removing the items is the wrong approach in such a situation. TRPOD initially stated that there are several options when there are no citations and that removal is one of them. They said it was justified in this case because of a history of 'single purpose accounts' using wikipedia to promote the subject of the page. But nothing that was deleted was actually inappropriate. Just because an item can serve to promote the subject of the page doesn't make it inappropriate or an advertisement. What seems to be appropriate under the wikipedia guidelines is to tag the items and, especially if they are easily verifiable, to begin to add the citations where they are missing. This was never undertaken by TRPOD yet the deletion is claimed to be appropriate. I also recently posted the list on a separate page and specifically stated in its talk section that I was going to start building the citations. Yet the list has again been removed from that page, which now redirects to the altered OH page. As far as I can tell that is not supported by the wikipedia guidelines. I will also post more thoroughly in the OH talk section. Thanks for your input. Cheers. Paulydee (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Just because an item can serve to promote the subject of the page doesn't make it inappropriate or an advertisement." Well, actually, yes: it does. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or yes and no - a statement that John Doe Hypothetical University includes thirty-seven Nobel Laureates amongst its teaching staff might well serve to promote it, but if it was something widely commented on in published reliable sources, inclusion would presumably be merited. The point is that we let independent sources decide what is relevant when it comes to content that looks promotional. We have to, if Wikipedia is to remain an encyclopaedia, rather than become a web-hosting service. Which is why Paulydee would be making better use of his time if he was actually looking for references, rather than arguing about the merits of an unreferenced list. As a tactic it seldom gets anywhere, as the general assumption tends to be that arguments for unreferenced content are driven either by laziness, or by a lack of actual sources. Cynical perhaps, but that is the way it goes - and the solution is self-evident. Source it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by volunteer - to coordinator I am opening this case for further discussion.  I reviewed the comments above as well as the discussions on the article TP and see where PP has been enacted in the past because of similar issues in 2014 so the dispute is not new to this article even though the editors may be.  In reviewing the article, the list of notable alumni is WP:UNDUE for the reasons mentioned in the summaries above and creates a rather promotional appearance to the article rather than it being encyclopedic containing general information about the law school.  The OP believes the deletion was inappropriate but I disagree based on WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE which also effects WP:NPOV because the list appears to be handpicked rather than supported by RS.  In maintaining conformity or some form of consistency throughout WP regarding like articles, I will use Yale as an example.  Weight and balance are essential to maintaining NPOV and while a notability section may be warranted if properly cited using RS and GNG, the current list is lacking.  The article needs more attention to the school's early history, administration and organization, campus and campus life, academics, and then perhaps a properly sourced and cited notable persons section with subheadings that include benefactors, and notable alumni and faculty.  The latter should of course depend on sources and although some of the people added in the current list appear to have WP BLPs, those stubs are questionable with regards to GNG.  At this point in time, I suggest replacing the list with a brief paragraph indicating that notable people attended the school; written in prose rather than a list and cited using RS and GNG as the guidelines for the section.  Atsme 📞📧 15:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My major concern was the insistence upon reinserting unsourced content. Yes, an article that is 90% a list of alumni is a joke, but there are worse things in the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree about adding other things to the article and I think some of those things did exist in the past but were removed for no reason I can understand. With respect to the issues of neutrality being skewed because the list is handpicked I think I have spoken to that already. I am of the opinion that for the most part, the notability and reliability of the sources about the people on the list are easily verifiable and all that is lacking is the final stage of creating the formatted citations in the actual list rather than having to go the individuals' pages.Paulydee (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If Paulydee is going to try to re-insert other unsourced content that was removed because xi doesnt understand WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:OR and WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTADVERT; then I will have issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer's statement - on June 8, 2015 I posted reminders to the TP of the three involved editors and all but have responded.  To date, I haven't seen anything presented by the involved parties to indicate a compromise is in the works or even being discussed.   There is no question that unsourced material is subject to deletion, and the same applies to an unsourced list of alumni, particularly as it applies to WP:GNG.  I recommend that Paulydee (talk) review WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:MOS (using Yale as a model), and to please consider the suggestions made above. I am of the mind that the editors who disputed inclusion of the list because it fails to meet the requirements of WP:PAG have a substantive argument. Sometimes the people we consider to be notable do not always meet the requirements for WP:GNG. I will keep this case open for another 48 hrs. to give Orangemike a chance to respond, and welcome others to express their concerns and offer suggestions.  --Atsme 📞📧 22:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing more to add. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder subpage
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles
 * Discussion: here

The dispute is over the content of this user subpage and whether parts of it should be removed per WP:POLEMIC.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first step after the talk page discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Judge whether it really contains polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.

Summary of dispute by Anders Feder
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Anders Feder subpage
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. − * This is almost certainly not the right venue for a complaint such as this. − * You are equally almost as certainly reading far more into it than it deserves. − Can someone please (non-admin closure) this ASAP. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  14:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where exactly have you tried to discuss it?

Talk:Greece-Italy relations
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

It's about the statement "una faccia una razza", which is usually used by the Greeks to express their similarities with the Italians. I would say it's pretty good information for that page. I see in the talk that in the past years there has been discussion about whether it should be on the page or not. Someone has some valid points, but nothing that justifies the complete removal of the text, in my opinion. That someone keeps removing the text; his latest reason: "it's unencyclopedic". Now, if someone can explain me why it's unencyclopedic, I'll be happy to take it. Until that time I, and several people, disagree. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I'm honestly afraid there is not much to do. I just started looking at the issue, but I see it has been going on since 2013

How do you think we can help?

I would need someone who's an authority to clearly explain if that paragraph is unencyclopedic. If it is, it would be really nice to know why. If it isn't, as I believe, that authority should do something about it.

Summary of dispute by Enok
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Greece-Italy relations
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case. There has been discussion about the inclusion of the expression on the article talk page going back to 2013, and again recently, and it appears that the issue is ready for a dispute resolution procedure, such as discussion here or a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

in the latest entry, there is dispute about whether or not the subject's comments in Time were made in jest. I asked the arguers for backup, they refuse to provide sufficient ones and just resort to name calling. Please resolve.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Replied on my talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Resolve this.

Summary of dispute by MarnetteD
Seems A21sauce has chosen to go down the rabbit hole here. If there is a speedy close for these this one merits it. Since has topic banned A21sauce from editing Abdul-Jabbar's article there isn't anything else to say. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by One|5969
Seriously? This is an absurd edit sequence. There are multiple sources on the article page which this editor is ignoring. He has failed to understand written sarcasm in an article in time, and now is wasting the time of folks who could actually be contributing positively to Wikipedia while dealing with this nonsense. I would suggest he be banned from editing on Wikipedia for a period of time in order to point out the need not to waste editors' time with this type of nonsense. The nominating editor changed the well-documented height of Kareem Abdul-Jabaar, citing an article from Time in which Jabaar sarcastically refers to himself at a much lower height in order to make an absurd point. Sorry, this is completely absurd and a waste of time. Onel5969 (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Pursuant to the discretionary sanctions covering biographies of living persons, A21sauce is prohibited from editing regarding Kareem Abdul-Jabbar for one year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I concur with the two editors in good standing that this was a conduct issue and has been taken care of by topic-banning the user under discretionary sanctions. Recommend closure.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Delibzr removed a large amount of content on the article List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. I tried to reason with him, however he did not provide adequate reasoning as to why he believes the current list constitutes a BLP violation. I tried to work things out by removing content that was stated by him (Delibzr) as well as user:EdJohnston. This however got me blocked, the discussions pertaining to this block are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xtremedood#Edit_warring_at_List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism

It has been over a month and Delibrz continues to fail to provide adequate reasoning as to why this list violates any wikipedia policy. I am open to removing any materials that violate wikipedia's policy from this list, however I would at least like adequate reasons. I have tried engaging in dialogue with Delibrz, however he does not respond in any meaningful way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to discuss with both Delibrz and EdJohnston that the list is valid and that I have removed contested materials from it. Delibrz stated he had issues with Dharmendra and A.R. Rahman and EdJohnston stated he had issues with King Chakrawati Firmas on the list. I removed all three personalities from the list. I however got blocked as a result. I would like for them (especially Delibrz) to provide more insight into why they may think the current list is not right.

How do you think we can help?

Try and bring about dialogue into what may or may not be wrong with the list.

Summary of dispute by Delibrz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by EdJohnston
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not one of the content participants in this discussion. My role is as an admin. See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive172. Provided the editors working on this page follow Wikipedia policy, including WP:V and WP:RS, then I have nothing more to say. If you read the AE complaint you'll see a summary of the past issues with the article which caused admins to take notice. Delibzr and Xtremedood were both warned at WP:AN3 after a confusing dispute. The warning said not to revert again before getting consensus. When the AE closed, it gave a 48-hour block to Xtremedood for continuing to revert at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism in spite of the warning. If Xtremedood wants to propose that some people ought to be added to the list of converts that were removed by Delibzr he ought to request that on the talk page. The talk page has been inactive since May 27, and Xtremedood may have missed the opportunity to create a proper discussion. The list of converts itself appears reasonably well-sourced at the moment, so some progress must have been made. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - As admin User:EdJohnston notes, there has been no discussion on the talk page for about three weeks. I suggest that the coordinator close this request.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)#Incorrect terminology needs correction.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I made a relatively small terminology-related change to the article. Onel5969 promptly reverted me. I contacted Onel5969 on his user talk page and explained my reasons but he did not agree. The discussion continued on the article's talk page; it went on and on and on with absolutely no progress made. Onel5969 has not even acknowledged the reasons and references I provided to back up my claim, let alone indicated why he believes they are invalid. Note I am *NOT* reporting this as a personal criticism of Onel5969, but solely because I believe that that is the primary reason the discussion went nowhere.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

So far I have not tried any other steps to resolve this dispute.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would be very helpful if you could convince Onel5969 to resume the discussion, and urge him to carefully examine my reasons (mainly my links to the UCLA Film Archive and to AFI) and explain exactly why he feels they fail to support my point; so far he has not done this. I think it would also be helpful to bring in other editors, *especially* editors familiar with the subject (early Technicolor processes), especially its terminology.

Summary of dispute by Onel5969
's summary is pretty accurate. Will only add a few pertinent facts, first, not sure this should be in dispute resolution. Several editors have commented on the talk page, as well as on their own talk pages where had contacted them directly to get them involved in the discussion. In each instance, the editor made their view clear, and it did not side with Richard27182. While consensus is not a vote, the reasons stated in each of those responses seems to indicate consensus. According to a google search, two-strip Technicolor is the preferred term, by an almost 2-1 margin (14,800 to 7,870). In addition, the citation used in the article uses the term two-strip Technicolor. I offered a compromise which Richard27182 completely ignored. DESiegel also offered a compromise, but Richard27182 decided to go forward with this DR. I don't really have the time, nor the inclination to deal with combative editors, which is why I simply began to ignore him, which is, according to wiki guidelines, the preferred way to deal with editors such as these. I also see that Richard hasn't contacted everyone he's brought into the discussion, only those on the talk page. Not sure he needs to, pretty sure he won't want to.Onel5969 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DESiegel
wanted to use the term "two-color Technicolor" rather than "two-strip Technicolor", stating that it was more accurate. said that the latter term was the common term at the time, and was still in common use by film historians. I suggested a wiki-link to the Wikipedia page where the process is discussed and both terms are used; I later suggested using both terms in the article along with such a link. Richard provided many links that he felt supported his view. Onel cited (but mostly did not link to) several sources which he said indicated that "two-strip" was the common name. The article talk page is fairly clear. At least this hasn't become an edit war, and has stayed comparitivly civil. DES (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Oakshade
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)#Incorrect terminology needs correction. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - I am neither opening nor declining this case at this time. There does appear to have been significant discussion on the talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. It appears that the focus of the dispute is terminology, in particular with regard to an old Technicolor process that is sometimes known as two-strip Technicolor and sometimes known as two-color Technicolor. I don’t plan to offer my opinions much, but it seems that if there are two names by which the process is known historically, they should both be used, even if one is technically incorrect. Do the editors agree that if a process is known by different names, they should both be mentioned, with appropriate clarifying language? Will each editor please explain their opinions about how Technicolor processes should be referred? If one form is incorrect, how is it incorrect (and should it be used anyway as a common incorrect name, with a clarification)?

The scope of this case is currently one film made in 1945 which refers to a predecessor film made in the 1920s. Will the scope of this issue extend to other movies or articles? Does this issue also apply to the article on Technicolor?

Are there any other issues about this article that require dispute resolution?

Please be civil and concise. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Please comment in your own sections only.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Richard27182
Hello Robert McClenon. There is at least one thing Onel5969 and I agree on. I too hope that this will not drag out. I will agree that the early color film process in question is sometimes referred to as "two-strip Technicolor" as well as "two-color Technicolor." My whole problem with using the term "two-strip Technicolor" is that it is misleading; it incorrectly implies that the camera used two strips of film. It didn't. (This misnomer probably originated from the term "three-strip Technicolor" which does accurately describe how that process worked.) I don't specifically object to using the term "two-strip Technicolor" in the article; but I strongly feel that if that term is used, its use should be accompanied by some wording to clarify that the camera did not actually use two strips of film but rather just one. My problem with "two-strip" is not so much that it is a misnomer, but that it is a misleading misnomer very likely to give a completely false impression to most readers. I would be happy with virtually any solution, as long as that solution is not likely to give any false impressions to the reader. (ie, I would have no problem with the (IMO incorrect) term "two-strip Technicolor" used anyway, with a clarification. Richard27182 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Onel5969
Hi - thanks for taking this on. Hopefully it won't drag out. Regarding your first paragraph, I suggested the following compromise, "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process, and which was produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924 ..." which includes the terminology for both. DESiegel suggested "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor or two-color Technicolor ...", which also mentions both processes. Either would be fine with me. Neither term is incorrect, since one is the name of the process (two-strip), while the other is a description of the process (two-color). The name is a misnomer, since it does not involve two-strips, but was the common name used for decades (which probably accounts for the double amount of usages on a google search).

Regarding your second paragraph. It should. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There are dozens of films which involve the two-strip/two-color process, and the decision reached here should be uniformly used. And it definitely should be edited into the Technicolor article.

Regarding your third question/paragraph. Not that I'm aware of. Not even sure why this one is here. A consensus had been reached, and two compromises offered. Onel5969 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by DESiegel
I had already sugested that both terms be used in the article. so I am fine with that. I thoguht that a link to the relevant section of Technicolor, where the process and the terms for it are already explained, would be sufficient -- this is not an issue that ewill be a msjor focus for most readers of the article, I would think. But clarifing language in the article eould do no harm, and might improve things. I don't know this field well enough to say if other articles will be involved in this dispute. I would suggest reaching out to the film wiki prokject. Technicolor appears to describe the process and the terminology already, and I hope will not need changes because of thsi issue. DES (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
Why doesn't each editor propose, in your section, draft language for how to describe the 1922 film? Then other editors can comment on whether they consider the revised language acceptable. We can look at the article on Technicolor later. For now let's propose drafts for how to refer to the process or format of the 1922 film. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early two-color Technicolor process, (often known as "two-strip Technicolor") produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ..." was proposed on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Richard27182
Hello and everybody else involved. DESiegel has made a posting on the article's talk page (DES .... 12:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ) which I completely agree with (except for the part about me overstating the likelyhood that a reader would draw an incorrect conclusion). (I would place a direct link to the article's talk page here or maybe reproduce part of his message, but I'm new at this and I'm not sure whether or not Wikipedia rules would permit that; but his posting on the article's talk page should be easy enough to find.) In that posting he suggests two compromises; I would be completely satisfied with either of them, or the equivalent of either of them. It would be interesting to hear how other editors feel about this. Richard27182 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
Because of the length of the discussion on the talk page, I would prefer to see proposed language here rather than having to search for it. Is the wording that I copied above satisfactory to all of the participants? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, copying from one Wikipedia page to another is permitted, as is linking from an article talk page to here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with inviting other editors to this discussion provided that it is done neutrally on a reasonable talk page, such as Talk: Technicolor or WT:WikiProject Film. (Inviting other editors to a discussion based on their previous opinions is considered canvassing and is strongly discouraged.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Richard27182
Hello  and others. I can certainly understand the reasons for wanting proposed compromise language (and other things on the article talk page that are mentioned) to be reproduced here rather than have people have to hunt for them in that long discussion. The proposed compromise listed under "Second statement by moderator" is not one of the ones I am in agreement with. Now that I know I'm allowed to do this, I will copy and paste the two compromises by DESiegel that I would be quite content with. They are:
 * Choice 1 (both terms with clarification and section link)
 * "The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early two-color Technicolor process, (often known as "two-strip Technicolor", although it did not use two separate strips of film) produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ..."
 * Choice 2 (neither term with section link)
 * "The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early Technicolor process, produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ..."
 * Please note the exact link destination in each case. What do you think of those? DES (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

(I checked the link destination and it seems to go to the top of the Technicolor article rather than directly to the section on early processes; however this is just a very minor technical issue, very easily correctable, and would not be involved in the dispute itself.) And as I previously indicated, I would be completely satisfied with either of them, or something equivalent to either of them. (And in his message on the article's talk page, DESiegel indicates that each of them would be acceptable to him.) So I guess you could say that DESiegel and I have already reached our own personal mini-concensus. Is there some way other editors could be brought into this discussion, especially editors who might be considered experts (or near-experts) on the subject matter involved? Richard27182 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello (and others)      I didn't exactly mean would it be OK if I brought other editors into this process myself; what I meant was, because I am a novice and not experienced with dispute resolution, is there some way you (or some other neutral party) could bring (or at least help me bring) other editors into the process?   (Especially editors with a good thorough knowledge of the subject.)  I wouldn't know how to go about doing it myself. Richard27182 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Onel5969
While consensus has already been reached on the talk page and on the talk pages of editors which the nominator of this DR canvassed, I'm not adverse to adding language such as: "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor or two-color Technicolor ..." (proposed by DESiegel a week ago), or "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process, and which was produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924 ..." (which was proposed by me over a week ago). The main problem is the nominator continues to confuse the name of the process, with the description of the process. We don't make parenthetical statements every time we mention a peanut that it is not a nut, or that a Koala bear is not actually a bear. The above compromises give the correct name of the process, as per the cited source, as well as giving the reader the information that this was a two-color process. Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
One editor asks about bringing other editors into this discussion. If the only issue is the terminology for the process for the previous movie, I don't see why we need additional editors. Is there another issue also? If so, please state what it is, and we can decide whether it should also be discussed here or whether it can be discussed somewhere else.

Is everyone agreeable to one of: "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor or two-color Technicolor ..." (proposed by DESiegel a week ago), or "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process, and which was produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924 ..."?

By the way, again, please comment on content, not on contributors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please drop the discussion, re-discussion, and meta-discussion of canvassing. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss article content, not conduct.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Richard27182
First I would like to respond to the charge of canvassing. This is an issue that came up and was discussed before this dispute resolution even began. It was discussed between DESiegel and Onel5969 and me, and it was agreed that at worst it was an innocent mistake by a novice and no harm was intended or done. I would very much appreciate if other editor(s) would cease raising that old issue every time they post something. Concerning the actual topic of this discussion, Onel5969's third statement says:
 * "The above compromises give the [emphasis added] correct name of the process......"

I maintain that if the process in question has a "correct name," if anything it would be "Technicolor Process #2." And that "two-strip Technicolor" is a commonly used (and misleading) misnomer and not the official name for the process. (Regardless of whatever term may have been used in the single particular reference Onel5969 is citing.) This is why I asked about the possibility of bringing in editors who would have some expertise in Technicolor, especially its development and terminology. My preference would be to refer to it simply as "an early Technicolor process" with a link to the appropriate section of the Wikipedia Technicolor article. But if Onel5969 insists on referencing the process's name in the article we're discussing, what's wrong with using its official name: "Technicolor Process #2"? I would be agreeable to either of the proposed compromises that I earlier indicated I would be agreeable to (in my third statement). I would also be agreeable to something that refers to it as "Technicolor Process #2." The most recently suggested ones are not agreeable to me. Richard27182 (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Onel5969
I see no need to further drag this out than it already has been. Either one of those is fine with me. Onel5969 (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator
Some of the versions of description that are being proposed are:

A: "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor or two-color Technicolor ..." (proposed by DESiegel a week ago)

B. "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process, and which was produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924 ..."?

C. “Technicolor Process #2.”

D. “An early Technicolor process.”

If any editor thinks that other editors should be brought into the discussion, I would suggest that the way to do that would be a Request for Comments, which would be one way to close this thread. If there are any draft versions of the description of the first version that are acceptable to the participants, we can close this thread as resolved. Otherwise, we can do a General Close of this thread by submitting an RFC, which can be publicized in various ways to bring in more editors, in which case we first need to identify what the choices are.

Please comment only on what the options are for the description of the earlier movie, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Richard27182
Hello      In my opinion there seems to be very little chance of resolving the dispute by continuing this Dispute Resolution process. So the question would be where do we go from here. You suggested a Request for Comments. Since I am rather new to Wikipedia, I will trust your judgement. I have read the material at the link (Request for Comments). What would be the initial steps that I/we would need to take to begin this process? Just for the record, of the versions of description that you mentioned in your fifth statement, I would be agreeable to "C." and "D.", but not "A." or "B." And of course I would also be agreeable to anything I previously said I'd be agreeable to. I very much appreciate your involvement and your help with this issue. Richard27182 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Onel5969
As I said, I see no need to further drag this out. My prior comments stand. Those are the two versions which would be appropriate. That was a compromise AFTER consensus was reached. This follows the guidelines of WP:CITE, and uses the term which is much more frequently used (by a 2 to 1 margin). This will be my final statement. Onel5969 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no need for an RFC. The difference between 1 & 2 above are that they are compromises, containing both the misnomer and an accurate description. Versions 3 & 4 above are not compromises, they are simply the viewpoint of the other editor. At no point in this discussion have my choices been one-sided. I have never offered the choice of having the article remain as it is, or simply referring to the process by the name cited in the source. The other editor is correct, when only one side is willing to compromise, than it is difficult to reach a resolution. The only two choices above which offer compromise are 1 or 2. Onel5969 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator
Since Richard27182 and Onel5959 are do not agree on how to refer to the previous movie, I will be closing this case as a general close shortly. An RFC will be developed on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I will note that there doesn't need to be agreement to the RFC for there to be an RFC. An RFC is, in most cases, binding. We can choose between a compromise and a non-compromise. If Onel5969 is willing to assist in closing out this case, they can identify one of the two compromises to include in the RFC, since 1 and 2 are equivalent. Richard27182 can then identify one of the two non-compromises. Then I will compose the RFC and close the thread. If the remaining editors don't provide their options, I will provide mine, but would prefer to prepare the RFC collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Onel5969
I'm fine with that, option #2 is a bit more specific, so I prefer that: "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process, and which was produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924 ..." Onel5969 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

List of_Murder,_She_Wrote_episodes
}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This is the second attempt, which was suggested after more talk page dissensions: We currently have a dispute over the content of the page, Two editors believe the page does not need to change. I believe some of the information mainly who the Murderer is, thus bring this page in conflict with wiki policy WP:TOOMUCH. I pointed out most of pages on wiki do not have this information, one response to that was lack of editors.

I also pointed out nearly ALL the information has no refs or has point of ref so how do I know if the information postage is even correct? No one has replyed to that issues.

IM not clean chicken but its not been helped this issues has hit rock bottom with some of the throwing back and forward. What made that worse was another editor throw there two cent worth of discontent against me so, it got even more sour. which it really shouldn;t have.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page, which as gone down like lead pipe, asking for Third party etc

How do you think we can help?

A good number of views, but I believe this process may be pointless and I may have to this the admin broad to get a proper ruling.

Summary of dispute by Skyerise
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rms125a@hotmail.com
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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


 * Volunteer note - On the one hand, there has now been discussion on the article talk page that has not resolved the issue, so that dispute resolution may be in order. On the other hand, the filing party has not listed any other editors in the case header, and has not notified the other editors on their talk pages of this request.  User:Crazyseiko - Please list the other editors in the case header, and provide them with the appropriate notice that you are requesting discussion here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the first time, so I have now added in the names, but I have idea how to notified the other editors, what is the code?


 * Volunteer note - Post to their talk pages. You may use the template  for the purpose, and its use is encouraged.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you need an additional volunteer? This would be my first attempt at helping on DRN, thought it might be good if I sort of tagged along with someone who knows what they're doing, but I wasn't sure if that was a good way to get started? My bad! valereee (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I dont mind how may volunteers join in!. I have done as requested and placed the tags on said talk pages.
 * Thanks, crazyseiko -- I meant to be asking the other volunteer whether he minded if I hung around watching and helping in any way he might find helpful, or whether he'd rather I find another case to go learn from. :) valereee (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What if this comes into play, would this make this request useless? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Skyerise
 * Volunteer note - Don't forget to sign your posts with ~, ! Face-smile.svg Come what may of that ANI discussion, it's not really something salient to this specific content dispute, unless the ANI thread is closed with a decision to block the editor in question or something to that effect, if that is what is being discussed-- in which case, the DRN case will simply continue sans their participation, I would think. Seeing as there are many parties who would be able to keep the discussion going without them, I wouldn't say it would be a critical issue to this area. BlusterBlaster beepboop 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to double check, it would be a tad unfair if a user can't give a proper response to this issues ie not all the facts etc --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Amendment - hold on, I just realized that there are only 3 participants in this case listed thus far (had the number of parties confused with a case further down), sorry! Perhaps it may cause an issue for to be unable to comment here should that happen, depending on their level of involvement in this content dispute (which isn't readily clear to me at a glance), but as things don't seem to be final at ANI at the moment, it remains to be seen. If you know of any other significant/recent contributors to the article or participants in the content conflict, I'd recommend touching base with them if you can. BlusterBlaster beepboop 22:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That ANI thread has been going on for twelve days anyway, and there doesn't appear to be any recent discussion of blocking that editor. There are sanctions being discussed that wouldn't affect editing or discussing the article in question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to ask what happens if the other two people don't want to talk on here? --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added multiple issues tags to the page to help highlight some of the problems I have raised. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: should be invited, as they added the content when creating the table on December 10, 2014. Skyerise (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I can see that one issue is whether to include the name of the murderer in each of the episodes. Is there any other issue? Can each of the participants please state, concisely, why they think that this information should or should not be included. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Please be civil. The objective should be to agree on how the article should be.

To answer a question, no one is required to discuss the issue here, but we would like to proceed with as many editors as are willing to participate.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One editor has replied. If no other editors comment within 24 hours, this thread will be closed due to inactivity.  That will not affect the text of the article nor ability to edit the article, but editors are encouraged (not required) to take part in discussion (here for the next 24 hours or on the talk page).  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Crazyseiko
The problem is kinda a bit more straight forward yet not so. The page in question I believe has to main issues. First: WP:TOOMUCH and second the lack of any references etc. Nearly all the information on that page has to be taken at face value, and  murderer is the worse aspect of the above two points. I've been here for many a year and I;ve been repeated told off you need a ref even if the information is so what True. --Crazyseiko (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: What is the point of this if NO ONE wants to talk about the problems, I guess will have to take this to an admin broad to get a proper ruling then from early next week.--Crazyseiko (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pam Reynolds_case#Balancing_Woerlee
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am adding credible scientific analysis of the Pam Reynolds case. Only the view of an anesthetist Woerlee is allowed by others. They will not allow a balanced analysis by credible scientists. My addition keeps on getting deleted. Sansbias.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

my comments are ignored. I pointed out they had a npov and they continue anyway.

How do you think we can help?

Please freeze the page with my additions.

Summary of dispute by and otheres
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Pam Reynolds_case#Balancing_Woerlee discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer note - There has been slow-motion edit-warring on the article page, but only one very brief exchange on the article talk page, so that requesting dispute resolution at this time appears premature, and this request may be closed as premature. The issue should be discussed extensively on the article talk page.  If there is subsequent discussion that does not resolve the issue, and a new request is made, the requesting party should list all of the other editors in the case header and should notify them of the request.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment — Requesting party has been blocked for edit warring at the article and subsequently indef'd for socking. Keri (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Specialist Comment - Being that the filing editor has been blocked for edit warring and indeffed for socking, I intend to close this in 24 hours as we cannot resolve the dispute if the person who brought it to us is not able to participate. Hasteur (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)#Infobox image
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The infobox image of the single has been disputed. The article's topic is a song made in America, sung by an American R&B singer. One user favors using the cover art of the non-US (id est French) CD edition, which contains a headshot. On the other hand, I want to use an American edition to fully represent the singer's nationality and the song's success in the U.S. (and elsewhere). However, the American cover art displays a sunflower with a white background, which is bothersome for other editor.

I want to take this to WP:non-free content review, but usually administrators would find using more than one non-free cover art excessive. If using two cover arts is too much, then we should use one image instead. This led both of us into changing infobox back and forth as shown in history logs.

I discussed this with MiewEN in the article talk page, but we haven't reached an agreement yet. The other user deemed my arguments as "rasistic" because I prefer using a cover art that represents a singer's and a song's nationality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I requested the third opinion. The volunteer who took the request suggested using both images, but WP:NFCC and administrators won't approve using two images representing the original artist's rendition of the song. I replied and pinged that volunteer, but I've not seen a quick response.

How do you think we can help?

Rather than do RFC for consensus, I shall request resolution here instead. I need someone who is an expert of non-free images and copyright policies, like Masem or someone else from WP:NFCR. Also, I don't mind many volunteers being one-sided, neutral, or multiple-sided as long as they are experts of music and/or copyright and experienced.

Summary of dispute by MiewEN
All I had to say, I did on the relevant talk page, so hope I have inspired those who think off the box too. They are not usually in charge though, so my carnal expectations are limited by the others around. Meaning, I did my best, so I don't mind wishing well either to my oponents. MiewEN (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)#Infobox image discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. I am neither accepting nor declining the case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Different volunteer note - My feeling on this (and it's just one volunteer) is that this needs to be closed/tabled for a consensus to establish based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums (which is nomnitavely the parent project for WikiProject Singles). There's significant implications and I think that it would be best to have a consensus based standard for singles/albums covers so that we're not having to reiterate the same arguments over and over. Hasteur (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Participant note - I decided to use both images for now until we get a consensus as suggested. I want this closed as soon as possible, so I can open up the RFC. George Ho (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Any objections to the solution George Ho has provided? Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , you can close the George Ho's request, if that's what you're asking me. As for the rest, I'm neither accepting nor declining his solutions, but let's see what the others can do to meet him halfway through. MiewEN (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * what I'm asking is that you agree to go ahead and close this DRN request (without any bearing on any potential future DRN cases) based on the fact that there's now both images and an RFC out to determine consensus. I'm also saying to  that both of you should participate in the Use of multiple album covers discussion as it makes significant implications with respect to this dispute. Hasteur (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I do agree with closing this DRN case provided that nobody will be hasting the time still needed to determine a general consensus through the RFC process and/or WPA project as suggested. I will address the latter soon, no matter any lack of my own time management., thank you for patience as well. MiewEN (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Supercarrier
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Previously in the article there was a content dispute of adding 'Proposed Supercarriers' for which a RfC is currently under progress.. Now the dispute is about 'adding the correct definition of a supercarrier '.. The article in the first line states that a supercarrier is the one which displaces over 70,000 short tons, and two other editors disputed the line and the source stating that it's an 'old' definition and current supercarriers are approximately the size of a Nimitz class carrier or the carriers which are stated as 'supercarriers' in multiple reliable sources (really?). Well, I agree on the first statement, but how reliable sources define a supercarrier? Isn't it original research? But what bothers me the most is that, the editor, won't let me change the content which well suites the current definition, stating that it is an original research. Also the editor doesn't want me to add even an inline 'disputed' template after the definition. This is not only of concern to the article but also highly misleads the readers (being in the first line of the lead), as I can find every other website using the definition of supercarrier from the Wikipedia article. I'm loosing my WP:BOLD. On a lighter note, this type of behavior is not only sad but is also highly discouraging my future contributions here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Added a 'disputed' tag here and tried to change the content here. There is a discussion in the article's talk page here.

How do you think we can help?

By indicating what's the correct definition of a supercarrier and why it should be replace the existing definition in the lead section of the article. Withdrawn by complainant -- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nick Thorne
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It is not up to editors to define anything. We follow the sources. So far as Supercarriers are concerned, we can only call a particular ship a supercarrier if the sources do, regardless of what we think is the definition of one.

We seem to have two editors here, including the OP who do not seem to understand this basic principleand who want to make edits that ate in fact either OR or synthesis. The latest edits were made by the OP and I reverted them. I made a post on the talk page explaining my reversion but the OP has not responded.

The discussion linked to above was several days old when the edits occurred that seem to have prompted this report. The OP had not discussed this matter on the talk page since those edits.

Consequently, I believe that this case should not be accepted. - Nick Thorne  talk  12:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Antiochus the Great
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by M.srihari
"The first ship to be described by The New York Times as a supercarrier was HMS Ark Royal (91) in 1938, with a length of 685 ft and a displacement of 22,000 tons, designed to carry 72 aircraft. " If Nick thorne's arguments seems to be correct, then this is a "Decommissioned supercarrier"(really?). And the following URL states something about a "heavy aircraft carrier" which is about 90,000 tons. http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/russia-trying-to-sell-100000-ton-heavy.html. Since it is not referred as supercarrier in the Russian media, Should we exclude it? (As we should follow the 'source') That is why I think it is necessary to have a proper definition of what is a supercarrier because this term is often misleading as this is mostly used by media (source) and most of them believe in their own view or information in encyclopedia (like wikipedia).M.srihari (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

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


 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but nearly all of it was a week ago. I suggest that the editors go back to the talk page and see if discussion works.  I see that one of the editors does not think that this case should be accepted, but doesn't say why.  Participation in this noticeboard is voluntary, but saying that one doesn't want to participate, without saying why, isn't helpful.  I also see that there are multiple comments on contributors.  Regardless of how dispute resolution proceeds for this article, the editors need to learn to comment on content rather than contributors.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note I notice Antiochus the Great attempt at removing referenced content on many navy related articles. I don't know what is his purposes on doing this but this is already going too far without anybody ever trying to give him a serious warning.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 15:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Volunteering this case . As the editor is an experienced editor, no one (regulars to the page) will be willing to discuss the issue as happened in the past. The discussion will be one to one and my best guess is that, it won't bring any good results. I came here 'cause I want the help of other editors who can correct me if I'm wrong and I'm pretty sure that I'll have a mediated discussion here. If you still suggest me to take it to the talk page, I'll comply. Regards -- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  15:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is because the editor is 'experienced'? Lot of editors I've seen have 'editor is experienced and so, he'll be right' policy towards experienced editors, at least in the talk page of Supercarrier. Regards -- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  15:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I am neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but only noting the following administrative matters: discussion (if a few days old) and notice appear to be adequate and the RFC pending at the article page does not, indeed, appear to include this issue. We're waiting for summaries from the other participants before proceeding further. If the issues raised by Nick Thorne are correct, and I'm not suggesting by that reference that they are or are not, they will be considered in the proceedings here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral observation Janes describes R08 and R09 as 'supercarriers', considering they are the foremost experts on naval matters, I believe that resolves the issue? With respect to the editors who raised this non-issue and bearing in mind good faith, the suggestion that anything below 100k short tonnes is not a SuperCarrier is arbitrary, potentially NPOV and bears absolutely no weight whatsoever. Twobells''t@lk 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not the case. The opposing editors define supercarriers as, the carriers which are mentioned 'so' (supercarrier) in multiple reliable sources.. -- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  14:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Jaaron95! Sorry, you completely lost me, no-one is suggesting that the term doesn't exist, I was referring to the fact that Janes and other naval experts refer to this vaguest of terms 'supercarriers' not purely by weight but by their projected power, for example, Beyer, Calvetti and Cecchi even describe R91 as a 'SuperCarrier'. The fact is that editors cannot apply arbitrary limits to a vague term that isn't even offical, to do so would be OR. Regards Twobells''t@lk 14:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * correct me if I'm wrong. What you are saying is that, factors other than tonnage is considered while defining a supercarrier.. Right? If I got that right, is not the first line of the respective article misleading? Regards, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  14:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a tough one because currently the term is vague, however, the fact is that defence sources do refer to heavy aircraft carriers over 70k tonnes as 'supercarriers', I suppose you could add 'as well as their potential for extensive power projection'.' following '70,000 tons' but the reader would gather that from the following paragraphs anyway. Twobells''t@lk 15:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree on the point of including the power projection, but does any source tells so? If not, the opposing editors won't allow the definition stating that it's WP:OR. If the existing definition has to continue in the article, how about not including the definition in the article..? considering that the readers won't go through the whole article 90% of the time.. If it is your case, won't INS Vishal qualify the criteria? -- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Once the keel and island has been laid I see no reason not to add the INS Vishal at all, the vessel's design concept clearly reflects that of heavy aircraft carrier best practice, the problem occurs however as to what amount of design is indigenous due to the expected level of input from the Russian Design Bureau. I expect the article will look similar to the BAE Amazonas corvette class. regards Twobells''t@lk 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I realize that you two are likely new to DRN and not aware of how it works. At present we are waiting for the remaining parties to give their opening statements and acknowledge their participation. Then a random DRN volunteer will formally open the case. Until then there should not be any discussion so please wait. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) DRN volunteer


 * Volunteer note - Editor M.srihari has been blocked for two weeks for edit-warring on the article in question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer specialist note: Hello there. I get called in on DRN cases where the the conversation has gone on for far too long or there's no way to tell if the dispute is still going. Based on my reading of this case, I think this thread either should be closed as resolved (based on 's withdrawl) or sent back to the article talk page to secure more discussion (in light of one editor being blocked for 2 weeks). In no way am I making any judgements about conduct that editors have presented so far.  Any thoughts ?  If I don't hear any reasonable objections, I intend to close this in 48 hours from this comment. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello I made my views clear on the talk page (I'm not objecting the closure of this case). Regards -- JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  18:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection. -  Nick Thorne  talk  22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * M.srihari has objected to this closure, but as they are blocked and unlikely to be released from the sanction, I am electing to ignore their request. Further, the conduct by M.srihari is indicative of a unhelpable COI focused editor that may releieve this board of obligation. Hasteur (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rohingya people
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In a nutshell, the following edits i have added to the article Rohingya people, as shown here, have been removed by an IP address (203.81.69.86 ). Their main gripe seems to be that The Economist is not a reliable source, so the edits are not legal and hence the IP removes my additions. However, the IP strangely keeps at least one of my edits that uses The Economist source (i.e. my edit that says: The word Rohingya means “inhabitant of Rohang”, which was the early Muslim name for Arakan). This leads me to believe that the IP simply removes (or approves) content based upon what suits their own personal views, rather than based upon any legitimate concerns regarding the reliability of references.

In the talk page section you will also note that i already have one editor, User:QuiteUnusual, who supports the reliability of The Economist. Therefore, i think with this support plus your (i.e. dispute resolution officer) own advice this dispute can be quickly concluded and either a restoration or exclusion of my edits can be finalised.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve this dispute using exhaustive reasoning with the IP on the articles relevant talk page section.

How do you think we can help?

I believe that if it is shown that The Economist is reliable then the IP will have zero excuses to remove the content that is sourced from it.

Summary of dispute by 203.81.69.86
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Rohingya people
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This DRN fails to include all of the participants over the last few days ... who, incidentally, edit-warred the page to a total temporary protection. I am not a participant in the discussions, but I reported users for edit warring and sent the page for RPP. Look at this edit history train wreck.
 * Volunteer Note - The listed IP has not been notified, but has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked editor (and so I am not notifying). If other good-faith editors are edit-warring with the filing party, they should be listed and notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Specialist Note - Hi there. I'm a specialist that gets called in to try and figure out what the right solution is. Based on what I'm seeing we have 2 IPs fighting as to the interpretation of a word based on the "reliability" of The Economist.  One of the IPs has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked editor.  Based on the way this is presenting I think there are 2 routes forward. First is to get an independent review by Reliable Sources Noticeboard to determine if The Economist is a reliable source with respect to the subject matter.  Second is to establish a consensus on the disputed language, sentence by sentence if necessary, so as to prevent both sides ignoring Bold, Revert, Discuss and become victims of edit warring. As such, I do not think there's anything for DRN to do at this time.  Pending reasoned objection, I intend to close this request (as we cannot resolve the dispute if one editor is blocked) in 48 hours from my signature. Hasteur (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zulu (musician)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I removed unsourced information from this article and added notices questioning notability and neutrality. The person the article is about has personally been reverting my removal of sourced information and removing the notability/neutrality notices. I have attempted to revert three times, which falls under exemption #7 of the three-revert rule, but have decided to stop since the other user seems to have no intention of stopping. The other user has responded in the Talk page but has made no efforts to justify the unsourced information nor has he added an actual sources for information in his article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I explained to Mczulu my position against him using Wikipedia as a platform for self promotion. He has not provided any evidence that his article falls under the guidelines for notability.

How do you think we can help?

I would appreciate advice on further steps to take or if any should be taken. I am unclear whether the other user should be blocked from editing, if the page should be protected from editing, whether the removal of unsourced information should remain, or whether the article and the notability of its subject are fine.

Summary of dispute by Mczulu

 * Hello and thank you all for inviting me to the talk. I would like to first state that I indeed made an edit to the page, by adding the box (with a picture (three days ago) since I noticed that there was none. Aside from that I did not put this info on WIKI. It seems your policies require one to submit to the final say of anonymous editors, with no opportunity to make changes. Also regarding the above, it is not clear that I made revisions because I am not as versed in your practices. There are however, several fans who are willing to advocate on my behalf as an artist, not "sock puppets". Since it is not necessary for my "accuser" to sign in, I suppose perhaps they see no need to either.

Please make suggestions as to what you would like to see on the page. I believe "Notability" requirements are satisfied from the first citation, with a segment on National Public Radio (and there are several more). If this is not the case please let me know, and I can provide the info. If, however you all are determined to delete the page.... I suppose that is your right. Mczulu (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zulu (musician) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer note - There has been considerable discussion (not all of it civil) at the article talk page. The filing unregistered editor did not list himself or herself as a party; I have added him or her.  A conflict of interest issue has been raised on the article talk page, because the editor User:McZulu appears to be MC Zulu, the subject of the BLP.  Coordinator attention is requested concerning the conflict of interest issue.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding me to involved users, I am not super familiar with this process. There is a WP:COI issue, but the more notable problem is blatantly WP:NMUSIC and McZulu likely sockpuppeting to remove the notices from his article that would allow for the Wikipedia community to discuss this and the COI issue. 71.96.93.217 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note 2 - In view of the unregistered editor's statement that the real issue is notability, the appropriate forum is probably not DRN but Articles for Deletion. (The ability to create an AFD subpage is one of the features available to registered but not unregistered editors.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Robert. I was unsure what should be done in this situation, and it seems clear that submitting it to AFD is the proper course. This cannot be done right now due to the article being set to protected. 71.96.93.217 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Specialist note: Being that the IP address was confused as to where to go to have the notability of this page in which the subject of the BLP is heavily contributing (which is a gargantuian no-no), I'm going to close this request in 48 hours as "Follow the Articles for Deletion Process." pending a significant and reasoned objection by the disputants. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I thank you all for your time. and I'll tell you (all) again... I posted the picture a few days ago, and nothing more. It is a serious misrepresentation for anyone to say that I "heavily contributed" to that meandering article...lol

Maybe switch out the picture and the question of my contributions will be a thing of the past, unless of course you are all convinced of my "non-notability"... then follow your heart.

It's been an enjoyable first week here on WIKI, and a great learning experience. Maybe I will stay on as a constructive editor :) I will not, however attack strangers or presume to speak for the entire organization under an anonymous IP address,

Blessings to all Mczulu (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Philip Benedict#"teaching" section
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There's a dispute on whether the article on Philip Benedict should contain a section on his teaching when nobody but his own students has ever written on that topic.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Explain the importance of policies such as WP:SYN and WP:BLPPRIMARY, and why Benedict's own students are not independent sources on his teaching.

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Huon essentially laid out the problems with this particular section with.

The wider issue of the SPA/IP's overly promotional editing of the entire article is also of concern to me. (Benedict "illuminated" the meaning of a text etc.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing from participation given the lack of interest by the IPs on the talk page and the lack of resources here. I believe a community RfC will be able to effectively address the major issues currently under discussion without and leave DRN resources for issues that require such services. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

response by 212.189.167.134 to TRPoD

 * The paragraph follows WP citation policies. It states that Benedicts students credit him with supervising their theses. 212.189.167.134 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 5.87.161.220
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

No one is alleging that Benedict is a good or bad teacher. But the simple fact that he taught these people has been reported in prize-winning secondary source History books that have been vetted by Harvard University Press, Toronto Press, at least four independent book prize committees, and a combined total of reviews by at least 50 professional historians. No one disputes that he taught these scholars. There were some language issues by a different editor, but those have been corrected. There is no reason not to include this uncontroversial information. History books that discuss other scholars are secondary sources. And even if they weren't WP allows for the inclusion of primary sources. 94.161.20.219 (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 128.90.90.125
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Philip Benedict#"teaching" section discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case. There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page.  I will not be accepting this case because I have previous knowledge of the subject of the BLP.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What is needed for more action here? If nothing will be happening soon, then an RfC could easily settle the "teaching" section issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The facts that the books won awards and Philip supervised when he won awards makes them relevant. This is not synthesis. These two editors have been trying to destroy this teaching section of the article for some time. This is just their latest pretense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are the volunteers waiting for anything in particular or is there just a shortage of interested helpers? Given that the IPs have now moved to edit warring to remove flags identifying the issues in the article, I am more strongly considering moving on to a community RfC. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a shortage of DRN volunteers. Some are on vacation etc. I put a note on the DRN talk page and pinged a few people. Hopefully someone will show up soon. I am otherwise engaged and can't help at this time.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of resources here and lack of interest in participating by the IPs, I am withdrawing from the DRN and have instituted an RfC which can easily address the primary issues at hand and allow the limited DRN resources to be put to more effective use. Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * By the normal practices for academic bios The first sentence of that section "Benedict has led the Institut d'histoire de la Réformation's intensive graduate seminars (cours d'été), which attract a wide range of participants to Geneva from institutions across Europe and North America" is not usually appropriate. However "Several late medieval and early modern historians have credited him with supervising their dissertations, including Michael Breen,[22] Larissa Taylor,[23] and Liam Brockey.[24] Taylor and Brockey's first books, both of which began as dissertations under Benedict's supervision, have gone on to win book prizes.[25][26]" is very highly appropriate if the people are notable, but not otherwise. Given the prizes, 2 of them mare probably notable; the third one might be. Those articles need to be written.  DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Hi all - my apologies for the delay in a volunteer being assigned to this case. I see that holding an RFC has been discussed - is that currently underway? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  11:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shang dynasty#Language
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

We are discussing the "due weight" that should be assigned to the similarities between Austro-Asiatic languages and Old Chinese in the proposed "Shang Language" section on the Shang Dynasty article and the "Old Chinese" article.

They accuse me of being a "troll". I accused them of bias.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to compromise. 2 previous editors I previously disagreed with later agreed to a 'brief mention' which I am fine with.

How do you think we can help?

I think both sides should post the material directly from the source without their personal interpretation/opinion and let the neutral party determine the due weight.

Summary of dispute by Nishidani
In linguistics, you have internal analysis to reconstruct a language's history, and comparative analysis, to figure out that language's phylogeny. The former is basically focused on the idea of a self-contained structure, and separates Sinitic from the Tibeto-Burman family; the latter focuses on the relation between languages, and is more open to the idea that Old Chinese has its roots in proto-Tibeto-Burman. That the Shang language is considered the oldest form of Chinese has enjoyed a rough consensus, esp. among Chinese-language specialists. Scott DeLancey, who specializes in Tibetan, Himalayan, and North American languages, has argued the earliest language of a Chinese dynasty (Shang) might have differed, and the succeeding Zhou dynasty language represents an overlay of a 'Sino-Tibetan' language on a people speaking a southeast Asian language. Easy's problem is that he only has one clear source for this, and is unfamiliar with linguistics. Those who object are familiar with Chinese and some of the linguistic evidence, but regard Scott DeLancey as an outsider, or theories that contextualize Chinese in a broader multi-lingual/multi ethnic historical context with suspicion. Personally, I think the major advances in the field over the last three decades are complex, nuanced and polyphonic, and not reducible to a facile or complacent 'consensus of scholarship'. The proper way out is simply to register the details of these controversies, per WP:Due, rather than stuff evidence in, or summarily exclude it. The compromise: "'the Shang language is widely believed to have been an ancestral form of Sinitic, though there have been occasional proposals for a Southeast Asian affinity." is basically question-begging (Sinitic can mean 'ancestral' or '2nd century BCE: Chinese, etc. =a form of old Sinitic" is what is meant) and devoid of cogency.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Zanhe. Naturally, one would not expect The Cambridge History of Ancient China, (1999) to comment on, or include references to, a theory that has been proposed a decade later than its publication. External sources do state that there is a certain nervousness among Sinologists over new linguistic theories that argue against the traditional model that Chinese was 'Chinese' from the year dot. See Michael L. Walter, Buddhism and Empire: The Political and Religious Culture of Early Tibet BRILL, 2009 pp.75f. and esp. p.137 n.12.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rajmaan
Some members of several internet forums have an agenda to push with their own original research on the alleged ethnic origins of Chinese civilization. These just happen to match up with what has been proposed to be added to the article. And this is supposed by about linguistics only. So why is it being used to insinuate members of an ethnic group were or a certain origin? FYI I did not accuse Easy772 of being a troll. The actual troll is a guy who was arguing against Easy772 on these forums, named Toohoo aka Wingerman aka literaryClarity aka MohistManiac. I just don't want either Easy772 or Toohoo bringing their argument to Wikipedia. And yes these are relevant, in the case users are trying to turn wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND for their flame wars on the forums. Please keep this flame war on those forums and not here.

See these forums to see what I am talking about.

http://www.eastbound88.com/entry.php/259-Sino-Tibetan-origin

http://www.eastbound88.com/archive/index.php/t-24360.html

http://www.eastbound88.com/showthread.php/25814-Why-come-too-hoo-bring-up-Chinese-history-in-everythang-he-say

http://www.worldhistoria.com/sinitic-civilization-began-in-3000-bc-in-liangzhu_topic128651_page1.html

http://historum.com/asian-history/62119-proof-supraethnic-han-peoples-contained-several-components-5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20150326205946/http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/36792-liangzhu/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140829103747/http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/36974-sino-tibetan-is-not-genetic-to-sino/page-3

Rajmaan (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kanguole
Most of the discussion on the talk page is about including a theory (from the second citation below) that the Shang dynasty spoke and wrote a non-Sino-Tibetan language. This appears to have been recently dropped in favour of what has been presented as a compromise: a vague phrasing about similarities with other language groups, with selected supporting quotations to be added to the lead of the Old Chinese article. When I objected to that on grounds of weight and encyclopedic style, User:Easy772 referred the case here. I believe that he/she is seeking an adjudication, which this noticeboard will not provide. Kanguole 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ogress
(Apologies for my delay in speaking, I have been ill.)

The talk page discussion comprises a strongly-pushed argument by the user who filed this DRN (and, afaik, absolutely no one else) that the Shang dynasty did not speak a Sino-Tibetan language but rather an Austroasiatic language. They provide some citations they claim are in support of their argument, most of which have been challenged as to their actual content (i.e. that they do not say what he claims they do), and I strongly feel this remains a fringe theory at this time. I argue undue weight, lack of comprehension of and misapplication of cites, and a lack of coherent scholarly argument, particularly in regards to Delancey, whose work is the backbone of Easy's argument. Delancey's argument is about the internal structure of the language family that Old Chinese belongs to, not that the Shang were AA-speakers. There is no minority scholarly consensus to add. Ogress smash! 21:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zanhe
I was involved in the discussion, but not initially notified of the dispute. Thanks to Ogress for notifying me. I'm a history enthusiast but not a linguist, and don't know whether Delancey's view represents a small minority or a fringe. But I've read many general-purpose academic publications, none of which mention Delancey's view or anything similar. The Cambridge History of Ancient China, for example, says "it is clear that the language in which they [the oracle bone inscriptions] are written is directly ancestral to what we know as 'Chinese' in both a classical and a modern context." (see here). Easy772 has been persistently advocating the inclusion of Delancey's view, but from the discussion on Talk:Shang dynasty, I believe most people are against it. -Zanhe (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shang dynasty#Language discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case. In looking at the article talk page, it does appear that there has been extended discussion, and this case is ready for dispute resolution.  As the filing party notes, the discussion has not always been civil.  If this case is accepted, discussion will focus on content and not on contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet another volunteer's note: I have gone ahead and notified all four parties for you.  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a participant in that conversation and have not been listed here by the filing author Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 20:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ You've been added to the participant list, and I've added a dispute summary section for you. BlusterBlaster beepboop 21:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Other prominent and current participants in that conversation have not been included by the OP. This is already not starting out on good footing when you examine the logs of who has been actively discussing this issue: this talk history is ENTIRELY about Easy's position and I see aside from myself he did not include at minimum and, who are both also respected editors on Sinitic topics on Wikipedia and took nuanced positions on the inclusion (i.e. not just "I agree"). Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  23:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Observer Last time I spoke with Easy772, we reached an agreement by which I'd be fine with a statement to the effect of 'the Shang language is widely believed to have been an ancestral form of Sinitic, though there have been occasional proposals for a Southeast Asian affinity.' I am one of the two editors he mentions as having agreed with a 'brief mention'. However, the form of the 'brief mention' I agreed to is fairly specific, so I've been tapped to observe this resolution, in case it deviates from what was agreed. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to note before we begin that this dispute also extends to the ‘Old Chinese’ article, since that is the language they spoke. I am not sure if I need to make another separate request for that article.

These are the materials I feel are of interest regarding the language of the Shang Dynasty: Old Chinese. I am hoping to get a neutral opinion on how to include these in the ‘Old Chinese’ article and the proposed language section in the ‘Shang Dynasty’ article.

First citation

“There are many issues that seem related to the initial formation process of the Chinese language in the study of Chinese history.The recent archaeological research shows that just as Chinese civilization is a pluralistic and mixed one,so can Chinese be very similar to it.Archaeology has confirmed that Xia Dynasty,Shang Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty originated differently and their respective languages were naturally different,too.However,the three dynasties had close relationship with each other,so their languages had natural links.And another notable fact is that Zhou Dynasty originated in part with Hudi tribe in North China.Therefore,we can draw the conclusion that the formation of Chinese is a complicated blending process.” Xie Ruo-qiu, 'Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective,' Department of Chinese Language and Literature,Jieyang Vocational & Technical College, Jieyang, Guangdong. Comment. It doesn't give one much confidence in the author to read that he is still repeating the cliché about the Xia dynasty, which is in all likelihood, as most concede, a Zhou invention.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am currently awaiting access to the primary material and may have to add additional citations to this list.

Second citation

“A persistent problem in Sino-Tibetan linguistics is that Chinese is characterized by a mix of lexical, phonological, and syntactic features, some of which link it to the Tibeto-Burman languages, others to the Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and Mon-Khmer families of Southeast Asia. It has always been recognized that this must reflect intense language contact. This paper develops a hypothesis about the nature of that contact. The language of Shang was a highly-creolized lingua franca based on languages of the Southeast Asian type. Sinitic is a result of the imposition of the Sino-Tibetan language of the Zhou on a population speaking this lingua franca, resulting in a language with substantially Sino-Tibetan lexicon and relict morphology, but Southeast Asian basic syntax.” Scott DeLancey in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt (ed.), Increased Empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013 p.73

Note: Apparently this is Benedict and Nishida’s hypothesis(?) in a an essay written by DeLancey, and though he himself doesn’t subscribe to it, he says on page 88 “assuming the Shang was of Bai Yue stock, which is certainly likely”. So he clearly doesn’t think it to be a fringe theory.

Third citation

This article explores a new resource. Recent research — the fruit of many long years Axel Schuessler has spent gathering words — reveals an astonishing number of very old Southeastern words in the Old Sinitic lexicon.1 Schuessler has, in his words, uncovered “the multiple origins of the Chinese lexicon”;2 as Schuessler remarks, amazedly, “When pursuing OC and TB/ST etyma down to their roots, one often seems to hit AA bedrock, that is, a root shared with AA.” David McCraw, 'An “ABC” Exercise in Old Sinitic Lexical Statistics,' SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS Number 202 May, 2010 p.3

Note: The quote of interest is from:  Axel Schuessler, ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese (University of Hawai’i Press, 2007)  page 4

Fourth citation

'from a typological point of view, Old Chinese was more similar to modern East Asian languages like Gyarong, Khmer or Atayal than to its daughter language Middle Chinese.' Laurent Sagart, The Roots of Old Chinese, John Benjamins Publishing, 1999 p.13.

I apologize, I am relatively new here and am not yet fully familiar with all of the policies. I have no problem with including them, they had already agreed to a brief mention so I didn't think we were still discussing/debating the issue. I do, however, have a problem with you claiming them as "respected members" or "experts on Sinology" or whatever. Introducing them as such gives them false authority when we are supposed to be objectively analyzing the material on both sides rather than discussing the expertise of editors. We should stick to what other historians or linguists have different opinions or criticize the information I've cited above, please. Easy772 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's just more ad hominem. You're attempting to discredit me as the source of information rather than discuss the due weight the material I posted should be given. It should be noted that Toohoo and I have since resolved our difference of opinion and we are not participating in a 'Wikipedia Battleground' scenario. If we were, you would see references to Yangtze River Basin neolithic cultures being the origin of Sinitic language being the opposing argument to my view. I would ask again that we please focus on the due weight that should be given to the sources. Thanks. Easy772 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, what was posted on the forum is very relevant. We aren't on wikipedia to push original research concocted on internet forums. What was posted on the Shang dynasty article is a synthesis of various articles and original research interpretation that was first concocted on an internet forum. Why is DeLancey's work being shoved together with other citations to "prove" that the Shang were of XX ethnicity or spoke XX.Rajmaan (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's completely irrelevant and yet again, more ad hominem rather than focusing on the actual sources themselves. Nothing I posted was original research, it was all from sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria undoubtedly. I am asking for a neutral party to determine the due weight since I am accused of being biased. And, since I am forced to "defend myself" I don't even think the Shang would have been a good proxy for modern Khmer speakers (or what have you) genetically, linguistically or even culturally. I merely think the material should be expressed, in layman's terms with what a formal committee determines to be "due weight."--Easy772 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't agree with "how" I posted it, but I think the material previously mentioned deserves to be stated in layman's terms and not text book terminology. As noted by another user, the Old Chinese article especially has clear issues with 'synthesis' and 'jargon'. I came here for a neutral view on how the material should be given "due weight". I know this notice board will not give a "ruling", though it may have to be taken to formal mediation.

As a side note, a lot of this has been about discussing myself, despite the previous mention of not discussing the users. As a reminder:

Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. 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. --Easy772 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Convenience section break

 * Co-ordinator comment - OK, I appreciate that the topic here may be one that you all have disagreements about - that's why you're here. Noting that, I ask that you consider that if you were able to resolve this dispute without outside assistance, there would be no need for you to be here, so I ask that you don't discuss further until a volunteer is assigned - I am looking into this for you at the moment. Lastly, I note that only two of the four involved participants have commented here, and as I feel they may have a role to play in this discussion, ask if a volunteer can reach out to them and invite them once more to the discussion (I note they have been previously invited but have not yet responded.). Cheers. Steven   Zhang  <sup style="color:#D67F0F;">Help resolve disputes!  22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I will opening this case for moderated discussion. I know little about the Shang dynasty period in Chinese history. I expect that the editors will provide me with any historical or other background that I need in order to understand what the issues are and how to resolve them. My job is not to decide any issues, but to assist the editors in communicating as to how to resolve the issues.

In the past I have opened one section for each editor. Due to the number of editors, I will not be doing that, but creating one section for comments by editors in each round of discussion. However, I will ask the editors to present their own statements only, and to refrain from threaded discussion. Please comment on content only, not on contributors; the purpose of this dispute resolution is to improve the article. Please be civil and concise.

I intend to check on the progress of discussion at least once every 24 hours. I expect each of the editors in this discussion to check at least once every 48 hours, but the only penalty for not keeping up is that the discussion may get ahead of you. I would like to wrap this discussion up within two weeks, because that is the usual timeframe for discussions at this board. In about seven to ten days, we will assess whether we expect to have this discussion wrapped up. If we are making progress but do not expect to be finished in two weeks, I will recommend that we request formal mediation.

There was a considerable amount of exchange between the editors after this case was filed before the coordinator asked you to wait for a volunteer moderator. I will be collapsing that discussion for now, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because it is out of place. If you think it is relevant, you may move it from the collapsed section into your own statement. I may move some of it into your opening statements in the future. For now I am just collapsing it, only because it is not in the proper place, not because there is anything wrong with it.

I see that one issue has to do with linguistics, in particular with what language family was used, and about how to present different hypotheses in accordance with neutral point of view. Can each of you summarize what you think is the issue about linguistics and languages? Are there any other issues that need discussing? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

First statements by editors
Regarding linguistics, The main issue is the "due weight" that should be given to the citations below. Most of the editors seem to agree with a brief mention of sorts, but we can't quite agree on the wording.

First citation

“There are many issues that seem related to the initial formation process of the Chinese language in the study of Chinese history.The recent archaeological research shows that just as Chinese civilization is a pluralistic and mixed one,so can Chinese be very similar to it. Archaeology has confirmed that Xia Dynasty,Shang Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty originated differently and their respective languages were naturally different,too.However,the three dynasties had close relationship with each other,so their languages had natural links.And another notable fact is that Zhou Dynasty originated in part with Hudi tribe in North China.Therefore,we can draw the conclusion that the formation of Chinese is a complicated blending process.” Xie Ruo-qiu, 'Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective,' Department of Chinese Language and Literature,Jieyang Vocational & Technical College, Jieyang, Guangdong. Comment. It doesn't give one much confidence in the author to read that he is still repeating the cliché about the Xia dynasty, which is in all likelihood, as most concede, a Zhou invention.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am currently awaiting access to the primary material and may have to add additional citations to this list.

Second citation

“A persistent problem in Sino-Tibetan linguistics is that Chinese is characterized by a mix of lexical, phonological, and syntactic features, some of which link it to the Tibeto-Burman languages, others to the Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and Mon-Khmer families of Southeast Asia. It has always been recognized that this must reflect intense language contact. This paper develops a hypothesis about the nature of that contact. The language of Shang was a highly-creolized lingua franca based on languages of the Southeast Asian type. Sinitic is a result of the imposition of the Sino-Tibetan language of the Zhou on a population speaking this lingua franca, resulting in a language with substantially Sino-Tibetan lexicon and relict morphology, but Southeast Asian basic syntax.” Scott DeLancey in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt (ed.), Increased Empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013 p.73

Note: Apparently this is Benedict and Nishida’s hypothesis(?) in a an essay written by DeLancey, and though he himself doesn’t subscribe to it, he says on page 88 “assuming the Shang was of Bai Yue stock, which is certainly likely”. So he clearly doesn’t think it to be a fringe theory.

Third citation

This article explores a new resource. Recent research — the fruit of many long years Axel Schuessler has spent gathering words — reveals an astonishing number of very old Southeastern words in the Old Sinitic lexicon.1 Schuessler has, in his words, uncovered “the multiple origins of the Chinese lexicon”;2 as Schuessler remarks, amazedly, “When pursuing OC and TB/ST etyma down to their roots, one often seems to hit AA bedrock, that is, a root shared with AA.” David McCraw, 'An “ABC” Exercise in Old Sinitic Lexical Statistics,' SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS Number 202 May, 2010 p.3

Note: The quote of interest is from:  Axel Schuessler, ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese (University of Hawai’i Press, 2007)  page 4

Fourth citation

'from a typological point of view, Old Chinese was more similar to modern East Asian languages like Gyarong, Khmer or Atayal than to its daughter language Middle Chinese.' Laurent Sagart, The Roots of Old Chinese, John Benjamins Publishing, 1999 p.13.


 * Physical Anthropology I also wanted to write a brief paragraph on the 'physical anthropology' of the Shang, but this was also reverted, the initial "core issue" seemed to be that the remains used were thought to be war prisoners and not representative of Shang commoners. The next "core issue" seemed to be using primary sources and Shang not being the main topic of my citations. I would also like a neutral party's opinion on the "due weight" that should be given to these citations:

First Citation

A) The "late lithic samples" from Laos and Vietnam and the prehistoric samples from Thailand and the prehistoric samples from Thailand generally grouped together and were separate from the Bronze Age sample in Anyang. In a second broader analysis using 30 comparative series, Ban Chiang and "late lithic" Laos were members of a Southeast Asian cluster made up of modern and pre-historic series and separate from southern (Hong Kong) and northern (Anyang) Chinese samples

B) The closest series to Ban Chiang was the late bronze age Chinese from Anyang, followed by a lesser degree to similarities with Jomon crania.

C) "Howells has gone to great lengths using discriminant function analysis and other methods to demonstrate that the people buried in these sacrificial pits represent ordinary North Chinese living during the Shang dynasty and do not represent individuals of composite or mixed origin as originally believed by Yang (1966)." https://books.google.com/books?id=RTsXTy5aBgQC&pg (Page 225)

Second Citation

Ancient and modern Chinese and Thai skeletal populations were used for this biological distance analysis. The ancient Chinese population is from northern China at Anyang dating to the Shang Dynasty (1600BC-1046BC) while its modern counterpart is located in Hong Kong dating from 1977-1983. Individuals from both populations are thought to have belonged to the Han ethnic group and are possibly biologically related. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:osu1306430849

Third Citation

First Analysis: These results indicate a possible connection between Bronze Age Anyang (northern China), and Jomon Japanese with Ban Chiang, early Indo China and the Non Nok Tha series." Page 72

For the second analysis:

Closer inspection for the smallest distances for Ban Chiang and Khak Phanom Di indicate similarities between these groups, modern Southeast Asians and the bronze age Chinese series from Anyang.Page 83

https://books.google.com/books?id=RrM7jKx-HysC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fourth Citation

Further, in these broad comparisons the Bronze-age Anyang series is not far removed from other Chinese series. Crania representing one aboriginal group from Taiwan, the Atayal, is closest in the cluster(in the dendrogram based on distances) containing crania from Taiwan, Hainan Island and Anyang, a connection demonstrated in previous work. http://seasiabib.museum.upenn.edu:8001/pdf_articles/BIPPA/1997_16_Pietrusewky.pdf

There was also a citation Lathdrinor made me aware of that also contains very interesting information, but Rajmaan says the source is biased and I'm waiting for verification on this. Thank you for taking the time to moderate this discussion. Easy772 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh my god, how is that a summary? Ogress' <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator
The previous statement by User:Easy772 is a complete statement of his view, and is too long to be a summary. I have collapsed it. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it, but it doesn't answer my original request. By the way, please see Too long, didn't read. I will read it, but I first want to know what the issues are before I know what the authorities are about the issues. I would like a one-paragraph or two-paragraph statement by each editor of what they think the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
Apologies, I'm new to Wikipedia and it's policies.

Regarding Linguistics: I think the issue is the 'due weight' we think should be assigned to the citations above. As I mentioned, some editors that originally disagreed with me, have since compromised to a brief mention (something along the lines of "the Shang language is widely believed to have been an ancestral form of Sinitic, though there have been occasional proposals for a Southeast Asian affinity"). I think the wording needs to be changed as Nishidani noted, but something to that extent. I think the given citations warrant such a mention at least.

Regarding Physical anthropology: I wanted to write a brief chapter initially, but now with the additional materials that have been cited in the discussion, I am fairly confident we can make an interesting section on it. Again, I've included the citations in the post above and am completely open to how to accurately paraphrase the material and give it "due weight". The "jist" is that:


 * 1) Most scholars view the Anyang sacrificial pit remains as similar to modern Han Cantonese and Han Taiwanese. They also resemble remains from Ban Chiang. (They're talking about the East Asian remains here, included in the Howell's data set mentioned above, not in the pits containing European-like remains, obviously)
 * 2) Some scholars think the remains cannot be considered Shang commoners and were likely war slaves, others consider the remains average north Chinese living in the Shang dynasty. (Again, referring to the remains included in Howell's Anyang series)
 * 3) The presence of of non East Asian remains in the sacrificial pits: remains with predominantly 'Caucasian traits' or 'Oceanian traits', which are speculated to be captured war slaves held until needed to be sacrificed.

The "core issue" initially seemed to be that the remains were thought to be slaves and not citizens of the Shang. Then the "core issue" seemed to develop into me not having a secondary source to 'verify' the results in the primary sources mentioned above. The secondary source in the above post is in line with the primary material, however. Easy772 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the citation for '3' for the proposed section on physical anthropology, which editor 'Lathdrinor' supplied us with, is being contested by editor 'Rajmaan' as being biased. He claimed the publisher of Sino-Platonic is intent on proving the Indo-European origin of the Shang Dynasty. Of course we can't include biased material and I'm awaiting Rajmaan to substantiate his claim before including it.

The citation itself: On the presence of non-Chinese at Anyang

It's not long, and although the author hints of 'multicultural elements' of sorts, if you read it you can see that the author is not implying an Indo-European elite. She specifically cautions that none of the pit remains have been compared to remains of 'elites', includes a citation that suggests they were likely war captives and that they were neighbors that "weren't on speaking terms" etc. Easy772 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Ogress
This DRN is regarding the linguistics issue. I don't understand why you replied with four sentences on that topic and then went wild on a different topic. I'm not going to make a statement until you stop. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 00:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He asked if there were any other issues that need discussing and specifically posted a message in the Shang talk page saying the messages there may not be taken into account any more. --Easy772 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer moderator
I asked the participants whether there were any other issues about which there was disagreement for which there could be moderated discussion. User:Easy772 replied that they want to add a section on physical anthropology, so that was a reply to my question. If User:Ogress doesn't want to discuss physical anthropology, she is not required to discuss it. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there are issues of due weight about the linguistic issue. That doesn't say who disagrees with whom about what. Can any editor please summarize concisely, in one or two paragraphs, what they think should be added to or removed from the article? I assume that it is about adding a section to the article, because the section on Language isn't currently in the article. What does each editor want the article to say about language? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I would like a concise summary of what each editor wants added to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
First thing that should be noted is that my stance has changed since we first started the discussion. It's now obvious to me that "Old Chinese" language is described as Sinitic by most scholars and this should be given the most attention/weight. Old Chinese itself as noted in the linguistic citations above has an "affinity" of sorts to Austro-Asiatic that I think was interesting at least and warrants a brief mention of sorts, though I wouldn't want to give the impression that 'Old Chinese' was an AA (Austro Asiatic) language if it is a minority opinion. Most of the arguments essentially boil down to the due weight, correct paraphrasing and validity of these materials. I requested help objectively paraphrasing the material, but none was given, just various personal attacks and outbursts etc.

What I think the proposed Language section should include:
 * 1) Most weight put on the majority opinion that Old Chinese is a Sinitic language and highlighting the importance of this.
 * 2) A brief mention of the Southeast Asian "affinity" noted by some scholars of the Old Chinese language (in the citations above)
 * 3) A history of the language and perhaps some mention of it's importance in the Shang dynasty
 * 4) A description of the language (monosyllabic etc.) suited for a encyclopedia rather than a textbook aimed at returning students.

I welcome constructive criticism and hope we can all cooperate in making both of these sections. Easy772 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer moderator
I see that User:Easy772 says that their position has changed since discussion began. Do other editors agree with the restated position (which is now concise), in which case the linguistic issue is resolved, or do other editors still think that dispute resolution is necessary? If they disagree, please state how they disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statements by other editors
The idea that Old Chinese was an Austroasiatic language isn't a minority opinion – I know of no published author that has even suggested it. Nor has anyone suggested that Old Chinese was not Sinitic. Rather DeLancey has resurrected an old suggestion that the language of the Shang was not Sinitic or Sino-Tibetan, and that Old Chinese was created by the encounter between that language and the Sino-Tibetan language of the Zhou, who conquered the Shang. (Nor does he even mention Austroasiatic – his suggested candidate is Hmong-Mien.) The idea that the Shang spoke a non-Sinitic language is not taken seriously by the scholars who have been reading their texts and analysing their language for the last century.

The proposed "affinity" phrasing insinuates, but says nothing of substance. This is because it rests on three authors talking about very different things: DeLancey as above, Schuessler about substrate vocabulary in OC and Sagart about morphological typology. The combination of these is synthesis. (None of us know what the fourth source is saying, because all we have is a machine-translated abstract.)

I would focus on the work of scholars in deciphering the script and the extent to which the inscriptions are understood, with a brief description of the characteristics of the language. Kanguole 20:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kanguole. The notion that these scholars create some kind of minority consensus is pure synthesis. At this time, we should simply provide information on the language and not speculate - for that is what we would be doing! - on their non-Sinitic relations. The fourth source is not available and we literally only have a broken-English description, and it has already been of concern as not reliable given the topic (archaeology proving linguistics?). It seems wise simply to discuss the language until further scholarship is available.


 * As for "other conflicts", I did not see that question; at the same time, I see another huge infodump immediately after the first one and the one Easy did in the section that said "do not discuss here until a volunteer has taken the case". This is characteristic of his discussion style and it is very frustrating to find walls of text instead of comprehensible discussion. I do not think it is wise to intermix the two discussions; if we close out the linguistics one we can discuss craniometrics ad nauseum or a separate section can be made. There is literally zero overlap in the issues except that Easy has been pushing AA = Shang. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 20:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The idea that Old Chinese was an Austroasiatic language isn't a minority opinion – I know of no published author that has even suggested it."
 * That of course hangs on ignoring Austronesian, and implying the only alternative to the standard hypothesis is 'Austrasiatic'. Sagart whom Kanguole justly cites, happened to have suggested that Old Chinese was genetically related to Austronesian just over 2 decades ago. He has changed his views  in the last decade, but this field is wide-open, and not anywhere as categoric as editors tend to argue. McCraw's paper has been cited by defenders of Shang-Zhou continuity, ignoring the fact that it states just over half of his sampling of basic vocabulary has Tibeto-Burman roots (what DeLancey would take as the Zhou superstrate):
 * "'53.6% of basic (Sinitic) vocabulary had TB roots, 23.7% had SE inclinations, and 22.8% fell into the null category (unknown, disputed, or area). Observe that TB roots proved more numerous in basic vocabulary than in our sampling, an expected result.' David McCraw, 'An “ABC” Exercise in Old Sinitic Lexical Statistics,' SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 202 May, 2010"
 * "'The idea that the Shang spoke a non-Sinitic language is not taken seriously by the scholars who have been reading their texts and analysing their language for the last century'."
 * That is an odd judgement. For most of the last century, scholars reading these texts had no access to the extensive modern scholarship on members of the Tibetan-Burman, Austroasiatic languages acquired over the last 3 decades. Karlgren's reconstructed phonology has been radically revised, though it informed scholarly debate for much of that century. DeLancey is not just some fringe fantasist. He is a comparative linguist of the highest order, and his theory about the Shang speaking another language is not an off-the-cuff quip while in his cups. There is no evidence so far DeLancey is 'not taken seriously' by his peers. I see the same problem here that I observe watching the Modern Hebrew talk page. The exact same premise, of obligatory continuity between present and past, is obstructing editors, from entertaining seriously any scholarship that, based on recent work on creolization, is open to a different perspective, one less ideologically committed to an essentialist mindset. I don't think we have a right to choose between scholars, the problem is just undue weight. Kanguole is certainly correct that work should be done for a section on the script, its reading and the nature of its language. But that is no reason for prioritizing to the exclusion of theories like DeLancey's.
 * I tend to agree with Easy's opponents, but I feel that their opposition is based less on familiarity with the intricacies of comparative linguistics than on defending a strong traditional assumption about Chinese, which is looking increasingly simplistic.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better presentation of the material perhaps? Easy772 is impossible to follow and keeps moving the target and infodumping. It's admittedly very hard to evaluate information provided by an editor who is, in my experience, coming in with a conclusion and then hurtling text after text after that conclusion until something sticks. How would you characterise the material, if you oppose Easy772 yet have concerns? Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A better presentation would be too technical, involving a concise summation of several scholars' views, all nuanced into different positions, say of the contested language family to which Sinitic belongs. I'm quite prepared to give background, but I would wait for Robert to ask for whatever clarifications might be needed, since this is very complex (my objection to Easy is that he is way too diffuse, off-topic, and eclectic, cannot focus adequately on single issues. Kanguole is spot on in noting the WP:OR dangers in what Easy is doing. I think (s)he errs in assuming there is some consensus on this. My objection to the large opposition, understandably annoyed by this, is that they seem to be falling back into a mechanical reflex 'default' position that assumes there is no problem. As I see it, there may be.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet more Ad hominem and 'straw man' tactics. Most of the material on physical anthropology clearly state that the Shang sacrificial pit remains are closest to Cantonese and Han Taiwanese with all Southeast Asians as an outgroup. This is the third time I've stated this position. Any Southeast Asian affinity of any sort seems to be linked to the Atayal (Taiwanese Austronesian speakers who have been living among Taiwanese Han for some time). Any similarities IMO are likely due to Han Taiwanese admixture in the aboriginal Taiwanese. How would this possibly synthesize together to an Austro-Asiatic speaking Shang? How does this make sense in your mind? I am in no way trying to intermix the two as they should be in entirely different sections as well. Those "infodumps" as you put them are citations.


 * Regarding your only argument that deals with the sourced material, It's far from my own speculation. These scholars clearly state that various 'aspects' of Old Chinese have similarities to Austro-Asiatic language. I can agree that the "machine-translated" source may not be up to standard, but the rest definitely are. I think in layman's terms it's fair to say that some scholars have noted that "aspects" of Old Chinese have a "Southeast Asian affinity", or something to that extent. Easy772 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are moving the goalposts because we are talking about linguistics, and you have been talking about Austroasiatic affinity all along. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 22:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not "moving the goalposts". It was a completely separate edit that had nothing to do with Austro-Asiatic or Old Chinese language in the least, you only perceived it as such. I have been talking about a Austro-Asiatic or "Bai Yue" affinity to Shang regarding Linguistics. This is separate from the similarities between Anyang sacrificial pit remains to Han Taiwanese and other Southern Chinese regarding Physical Anthropology. They are two separate "goal posts".


 * The moderator asked me if there were any other issues in the first place, which is why I posted the 'physical anthro' material here. He also already told you that you did not have to participate in the discussion on Anyang remains if you didn't want to, which I'm assuming means that others, including myself are welcome to discuss them.

Easy772 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were moving the goalposts. Kanguole and I were specifically responding to the textual issues. You responded directly to him/us with "Yet more Ad hominem and 'straw man' tactics. Most of the material on physical anthropology clearly state that the Shang sacrificial pit remains are closest to Cantonese and Han Taiwanese with all Southeast Asians as an outgroup" and ran on from there on physical anthropology. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, Kanguole, to his credit for the most part, has not relied on these sort of tactics to make his point. You were the one I was responding to, I forgot to add the "reply to" text . Ad hominem: Critiquing my 'arguing style' and 'citations style' rather than the work themselves. Straw man: Saying I'm trying to use physical anthropology to support some kind of synthesis between that and the AA affinity of Old Chinese (Which makes no logical sense whatsoever). Easy772 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Easy772
It's not necessarily synthesis, all three have to do with the language and I can see how it could be put together to be synthesis, but with the proper wording we can give each it's own due weight. Regarding your statement that no one published takes it seriously, De Lancey is quoted in Jing-Schmidt's book as saying "Benedict's and Nishida's suggestion that the language of the Shang dynasty was of non Sino-Tibetan provenance, and that Old Chinese represents the outcome of the Sino-Tibetan speech of the Zhou conquerors on a Shang substrate, provides a possible explanation for the Southern features in Sinitic- Assuming the Shang language was of Bai Yue stock, which is certainly likely." (page 88) https://books.google.com/books?id=zOhFAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=shang&f=false

It may not be his theory, but it's clearly taken very seriously by DeLancey.

I agree that the primary focus should be on the work of scholars deciphering the script, but I do not think the material I have cited should be excluded. I am confident they meet 'reliable source' criteria, (except maybe the 'machine translated' paper) and just need to be paraphrased properly. If the scholars are talking about different aspects of 'Old Chinese' perhaps: "Various aspects of Old Chinese have been shown to have affinity to Southeast Asian languages" or something of the sort should be briefly mentioned. Easy772 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer moderator
Please comment on content, not contributors.

Since some of you have ideas about what should be said about language, I invite each editor to write a draft about the language or languages used in the Shang dynasty. You may provide it either here, with a level 4 header or a bold-face header above it, such as Draft by Editor Y, or in user space. Then please comment on the content of each other's drafts, with bold-face or italic headers and with signatures.

Fifth statements by editors
I wrote an outline of the general ideas I think we should include. I think the main issue we're having is any direct mention of any kind of "Southeast Asian" or perceived "non-Chinese" affinity to the language section. The other points would be relatively easy to agree on.


 * 1) Most weight put on the majority opinion that Old Chinese is a Sinitic language and highlighting the importance of this.
 * 2) A brief mention of the Southeast Asian "affinity" to aspects of the Old Chinese language (in the citations above)
 * 3) A history of the language and perhaps some mention of it's importance in the Shang dynasty
 * 4) A description of the language (monosyllabic etc.) suited for a encyclopedia rather than a textbook aimed at returning students.

easy772 Language Section
 * The language of the Shang was the earliest example of Old Chinese yet discovered. The Oracle Bones unearthed in the 19th century proved without a doubt the existence of the Shang Dynasty, previously thought to be a myth by many scholars.Though it was previously disputed, The vast majority of scholars now agree that Old Chinese was a Sino-Tibetan language. Most researchers also trace the core vocabulary to a Sino-Tibetan ancestor. It has also been noted that aspects of Old Chinese have affinities to various Austric languages.

Again, this is an "alpha" and I welcome constructive criticism. If you have more to add that will help me highlight the importance of Old Chinese being a part of the Sino-Tibetan family, I'll gladly add it. I think that the aforementioned citations deserve at least that brief mention. Easy772 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Kanguole

I've placed a draft for a Language section at User:Kanguole/ShangLanguage.

Since Easy772 is no longer arguing for the inclusion of the suggestion that the language of the Shang was not Old Chinese, the language of the succeeding Zhou dynasty, the last three sentences of his draft are about Chinese and Sino-Tibetan, rather than being particularly relevant to the Shang. Indeed the fourth sentence also appears in the Old Chinese article. The third sentence repeats the point, with an unnecessary preamble "Though it was previously disputed". My objection to the last sentence is unchanged – it implies but does not inform, and is synthesis – but the addition of the obsolete Austric hypothesis has made it worse. Kanguole 22:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I like your draft overall, but I think it needs to be written in layman's terms. Your article has clear WP:JARGON issues and most casual readers probably wouldn't understand half of what was written or it's significance. I disagree with your argument that the way I worded it was synthesis, the material I cited all describe 'aspects' of the Old Chinese and they all have Southeast Asian elements. I wasn't aware that Austric was obsolete, and would gladly change it back to " various Southeast Asian languages" or "hypothetical Austric family" etc., provided you can substantiate that claim. It is very clear to me, even as a non-linguist, that in layman's terms the scholars are suggesting general similarities between various Southeast Asian languages and Old Chinese. I think that breaking these down into technical jargon does a disservice to the readers and obscures the message to the vast majority of them. The section should be written like an 'abstract', conclusion or even a commentary on an 'abstract'/'conclusion' rather than a 'methods' section.


 * Here is another example, in layman's terminology, of a scholar suggesting "resemblances" between various Southeast Asian languages and Old Chinese by researchers:
 * Numerous resemblances between Old Chinese and Tai-Kadai (or Hmong-Mien, or Mon-Khmer, ¤c. ¤c.) etyma have been spotted by researchers, and much of this evidence has been painstakingly documented in Prof. Schuessler’s work, but for quite a few of them we still cannot definitely establish, for instance, the direction of borrowing, or even an approximate time and place in which the borrowing occurred (provided it is indeed a borrowing, and not a chance resemblance, or a trace of some older, deep-level relationship).
 * http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/schuessl.pdf
 * What reason is there for not stating it plainly that there were Southeast Asian resemblances to Old Chinese then?
 * Easy772 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the above quote, George Starostin speaks of resemblances between etyma, not languages, and this is stated plainly at Old Chinese (though it's not just SE Asian languages). Kanguole 01:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So it has, have the other citations I quoted given due weight in the sections in Old Chinese or related articles? If so, would you mind showing me where? If these ideas are indeed too complex to be conveyed simply in non-technical language we can work on simplifying your article and making it more attention grabbing.
 * Easy772 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by volunteer moderator
We don’t seem to be making much progress in getting a draft of the Language section beyond what Easy772 has written, so I will ask each of you to comment in your own section. (It seems that at least one post wasn’t signed.) I see that Easy772 has prepared a draft, and that Easy772 and Kanguole are discussing it. You may either comment on Easy772’s draft or prepare your own draft. Comment only on content, not on each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We now have two drafts.  Please comment on the two drafts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Easy772
I actually like Kanguole's draft, it looks like he put a lot of time into it. My only criticism is that he/she seems to be writing to an audience he/she assumes will have some prior experience with linguistics, which we can't expect for the average reader of this article. I still don't think saying "aspects of Old Chinese have a Southeast Asian resemblance" is misleading, seeing as a lot of the 'introductory' paragraphs or chapters in many works state various 'aspects' of the language (etyma, morphological typology etc.) have such an affinity. The subject also seems to be a 'work in progress', with many new developments. In the spirit of compromise however, If the cited material is given due weight elsewhere as Kanguole mentioned earlier. I'm willing to omit it in this particular section of Wikpedia and move our focus to the 'physical anthropology' section. --Easy772 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Kanguole
I linked to a userspace draft above. Kanguole 17:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Ogress
I like Kanguole's draft. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 20:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by volunteer moderator
Are we now in agreement that Kanguole's draft can be added to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy772 has mentioned wanting to discuss physical anthropology. What in particular is the issue? Is there disagreement? Do we need to continue discussion here, or can the creation of the section be taken back to the article and its talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Easy772
Regarding linguistics: I am happy with Kanguole's article besides jargon issues, but I'm not particularly adamant about them. The problem I'm having is I think my material is being unjustly reverted. The material definitely meets meets Wiki's criteria for reliable sources, but there's apparently no way to word it properly so therefore we should omit it? I wouldn't mind posting it in the relevant more technical sections if that truly is the issue here.

Regarding physical anthropology: I'm not sure what the issue currently is. The issue, at first, seemed to be that the Shang sacrificial pit remains were not representative of "commoners" or "citizens". I provided a secondary source citation in which a scholar (Howells 1983) claims to outright refute this. The "main issue" then shifted to me not providing secondary sources verifying my primary sources, but the secondary source is in line with the primary sources I've posted.

Regarding genetics: We actually may have a new issue, depending on how these latest reversions/edits play out. The genetics section contained one line from a primary source taken out of context. I have no personal problem with people using primary sources, so long as they stick to abstract/conclusion/summary type sections and not cherry pick content to mislead. However, this is exactly what that single quote, taken out of context does, as it completely skips over the multiple cautionary statements the authors make regarding interpreting this limited data. I added 2 of these cautionary notes verbatim and Kanguole reverted this without paraphrasing any of the cautionary material. I also would like to note the hypocrisy of this: requiring that I have a secondary source to verify proper interpretation, while at the same time using a primary source without a secondary when it suits (at the same time cherry picking material to present in a one-sided fashion). We should be held to the same standards, if primary sources require secondary ones then we should stick to that. Easy772 (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the edit I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shang_dynasty&diff=668617980&oldid=668615244

And here is the actual primary source: https://www.academia.edu/5297877/2013_AAPA_poster-_Preliminary_Research_on_Hereditary_Features_of_Yinxu_Population Easy772 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Kanguole
I removed text that was copied verbatim into the article from the source. From Easy772's edit, it seems we agree to avoid primary sources on genetics. Presumably the same also applies to skeletal studies. I would add that the secondary sources we use should directly address the matter we are citing them for. To take pieces of evidence from different sources (even reliable secondary ones), and combine them to support a conclusion is the very definition of synthesis. It is the procedure that is the problem, not the individual steps of the deduction. Kanguole 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm happy to see the "Genetic studies" section gone from the Shang dynasty article. We now seem to agree that any judgements of this type should come from reliable secondary sources, and that looks like the way forward.  Kanguole 08:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What constitutes "directly addressing" though. Also, is this a Wiki-policy like the policy requiring a secondary source? Or is this just a personal preference you have? The book regarding Ban-Chiang remains discusses Anyang remains quite in depth and is in line with the conclusions from the primary material. --Easy772 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I should be clear as well, there is no problem using primary sources provided (most importantly) that they summarize properly, also a secondary source should be given to back it up.

Regarding the Anyang remains, it's crystal clear in both the primary and secondary material analyzing the research that the Anyang remains closest modern proxy is Hainan Islanders. If "Ban Chiang, a Prehistoric Village Site in Northeast Thailand, Volume 1" is not relevant enough, Howells also analyzed previous research (Yang 1966) to note these same similarities in 1983. The close distance between Hainan Islanders and the Anyang remains is also noted in the primary sources I've listed. Howells also stated these were average people not necessarily slaves. Easy772 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Ogress
I actually don't understand Easy772's issue with regard to the "new issue", since the cite states, "The Yinxu population bore a high genetic resemblance in maternal lineages to the northern Han Chinese and other minority (sic) who lives (sic) in North China." As far as I can tell, Kanguole removed an uncredited quote and summarised it in a few words, "Yinxu graves showed similarity with modern Han Chinese and minority groups from northern China, but significant differences from southern Han Chinese." Can you clarify? Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 03:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite clear the way I put it.
 * It's misleading due to the amount of caution emphasized by the author. Cherry picking that quote out of the context of this short preliminary research paper gives it too much "weight".
 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. " (A policy that my opposition in this discussion has relentlessly reminded me of)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
 * --Easy772 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it misleading? It's not cherry-picking/interpretation if it's the actual paper's conclusion. It's from the summary.
 * It wasn't clear, which is why I'm asking questions. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For example: "Y-DNA studies from ancient Mongolia seem to show that many have a European origin. However, the majority of the paternal ancestry is still Northeast Asian. We also are cautious with these results because of low sample sizes which may not account well for the population as a whole." If you quote only the first sentence, it gives it undue weight. Do you get it?

Easy772 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by volunteer moderator
Are we now in agreement that Kanguole's draft can be added to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy772 has mentioned wanting to discuss physical anthropology, and genetics. Is there disagreement about these areas that we want to work out here, or can discussion continue at the article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by Easy772
I think physical anthropology needs to be discussed here, I doubt we will come to an agreement without mediation. The issue now seems to be the requirement of a secondary source to back up my primary sources. I have 2 (so far):
 * 1) The context of Howells (1983) is undoubtedly secondary due to the fact that he is reviewing/analyzing research performed by other researchers and himself. The original research papers themselves would be the "primary source".
 * 2) Ban Chiang, a Prehistoric Village Site in Northeast Thailand, Volume 1 definitely performs original research, but it also contains chapters that analyze the previous work of other scholars, so in this context is considered secondary. The section extensively deals with Anyang remains and directly supports the primary material.

We agree on the genetics issue, apparently.

The language section is fine despite minor jargon issues, it's a little technical for a non-linguistics secion, but I will agree that it should be posted. However, I still maintain that the information I've cited belongs "somewhere" on Wikipedia if we cannot agree on a concise statement that gives "due weight" and is not "synthesis". I think that still needs to be discussed here. Easy772 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Third secondary source: Previous multivariate craniometrics studies by Pietrusewsky, which have examined variation in East and Southeast Asian cranial series, have demonstrated internal differentiation as well as broad external patterning reflecting historical-biological relationships and past migrations. For example, while cranial series from Southeast Asia, East Asia and North Asia ultimately group into a single major constellation, there are also provocative connections between island Southeast Asia and Remote Oceania. Likewise connections between mainland and Island Southeast Asia, between Bronze-age Chinese and Hainan Island and Taiwan (including Taiwan aboriginal series were found. These connections may reflect earlier exchanges between peoples, cultures and languages of these regions. Easy772 (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by Kanguole
I shall be arguing for a thorough application of the NOR policy, particularly PSTS and SYN, to passages on genetic and skeletal analysis in this and similar articles. This is necessary, because interpretation of these results is contentious, even among experts, and their implications arouse passions in society and on Wikipedia. I didn't think that would require DRN, but this is Easy772's party. Kanguole 00:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My secondary sources meet the 'secondary source' criteria without a doubt. "Synthesis" would be putting various sources together to make a case none of them do separately. All of these sources clearly state that there is similarity between the Shang remains and modern Hainanese and Taiwanese. I am fine with "balancing" the contentions (regarding whether they represent captives or citizens etc.) but omitting this is unacceptable just because it "arouses passions". --Easy772 (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by volunteer moderator
Why doesn’t each editor who wants to add anything on Physical Anthropology, Genetics, or any other new section just prepare a draft for other editors to see? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by Easy772

 * Human remains from the sacrificial pits from Shang sacrificial pits at Anyang were excavated and studied in 1938. These remains have been dated to the 14th -12th century BC. Initially, the remains were considered to be non-representative of Shang commoners, they were thought to be war captives held only for ritual sacrifice. Subsequent research, however, determined that the remains were similar to modern Han Chinese. In relation to modern populations, multivariate craniometric studies have demonstrated that there were close similarities between these bronze-age Chinese remains, Hainanese and Taiwanese.

Citations for these above. Short, simple, accurate and easy to digest/understand. Though there are mentions of various Southeast Asian affinities in the citations, I don't see the need to include these as the primary focus of similarity is on modern Hainanese and Taiwanese especially and to include that would be giving it too much 'weight' --Easy772 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added the reflist. I have additional primary material that supplement the secondary ones that I can add later. The 1997 is a primary, but it is directly cited as the basis for the meta-analysis Blench et al. performs. I can also add additional interesting information, but I am trying to figure out how to properly word it (e.g. describe that Anyang were "relatively" similar to Ban Chiang remains, but nowhere near as close as modern Hainanese which by far is the best proxy.) Easy772 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pages added --Easy772 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Classification of Secondary Sources


 * Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are used. Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make. For example, if a historical text discusses old documents to derive a new historical conclusion, it is considered to be a primary source for the new conclusion, but a secondary source of information found in the old documents. Other examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic. Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field. For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source, but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary".

Attempts to map or model scientific and scholarly communication need the concepts of primary, secondary and further "levels". One such model is the UNISIST model of information dissemination. Within such a model these concepts are defined in relation to each other, and the acceptance of this way of defining the concepts are connected to the acceptance of the model. Some other modern languages use more than one word for the English word "source". German usually uses Sekundärliteratur ("secondary literature") for secondary sources for historical facts, leaving Sekundärquelle ("secondary source") to historiography. A Sekundärquelle is a source which can tell about a lost Primärquelle ("primary source"), such as a letter quoting from minutes which are no longer known to exist, so cannot be consulted by the historian.

Secondary Sources in Science, technology and medicine


 * In general, secondary sources are self-described as review articles or meta-analysis. Primary source materials are typically defined as "original research papers written by the scientists who actually conducted the study." An example of primary source material is the Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusions sections of a research paper (in IMRAD style) in a scientific journal by the authors who conducted the study.[14] In some fields, a secondary source materials may include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of a scientific paper, a description of what is known about a disease or treatment in a chapter in a reference book, or a synthesis written to review available literature. A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary source information. This allows secondary sourcing of recent findings in areas where full review articles have not yet been published.

A book review that contains the judgment of the reviewer about the book is a primary source for the reviewer's opinion, and a secondary source for the contents of the book. A summary of the book within a review is a secondary source.

"Secondary" does not mean "independent" or "uninvolved".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Party_and_person#Combinatorics

'''"Scientist combines data from a dozen of his own previously published experiments into a meta-analysis." Is a Secondary Source'''

I am convinced in the context these sources are definitely secondary, as they are reviews of previous research. The information I am posting is accurate, we are just getting caught up in a "grey area" due to the subjective nature of defining secondary vs primary sources. Easy772 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by Kanguole
I'm not proposing any additions to the article in these areas. Kanguole 07:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy772's draft is missing citations, which need to be embedded in the text for it to be considered for inclusion. If these are given using the usual markup, the footnotes can be forced at the end of the draft by adding there. Kanguole 09:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers are needed for references 2 and 4. Kanguole 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In Easy772's draft, reference [1] is not a meta-analysis by Blench et al, but an article by Michael Pietrusewsky based on his own research, as also reported in references [2] and [4], but here in a book edited by Sagart, Blench and Sanchez-Mazas. So we have three reports by Pietrusewsky on his own research, i.e. primary sources. Moreover reference [1] contains only a glancing reference to Bronze Age Chinese, while references [2] and [4] are searching for populations related to the Ban Chiang site by comparing them with samples from surrounding areas. It's not appropriate to use this for a different purpose, namely as a source on relationships between those neighbouring areas. Similarly reference [3] is Howells reporting his own analysis, though at least in that case it is squarely focussed on the Shang. Kanguole 23:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, the full form of the above references is: Kanguole 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  page 203
 * 2)  pages 129–130.
 * 3)  pages 312-313

In summary, Kanguole 12:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pietrusewsky cannot be used, because (a) he is reporting his own work, which is difficult for us to interpret and evaluate, and (b) Anyang is peripheral to his work, so his statements about it require considerable interpretation.
 * Howells is focussed on the Shang, and his article includes a summary and evaluation of others' work as well as his own data, so it might be possible to use his conclusion as an attributed view.

Ninth statement by Ogress

 * First, I'm not making a draft because I don't know what we'd add since this is entirely about what Easy772 added.


 * I have, since this conversation began, consistently pointed out that this information is about Ban Chiang. I direct you to click here: Talk:Shang dynasty, where I wrote:
 * In the latest diffs, Easy772 misrepresents the material completely and apparently deliberately. The Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia focuses on remains from Ban Chiang and has the Shang as one of its plot points; on page 83, it does not say what he claims it does about Shang similarities to Ban Chiang skulls. You are contorting a book that uses the word "Shang" one time in order to further your notion that AA = Shang.

To which Easy772 replies, "Yes, it does. read it again."

And to which Kanguole replies:
 * The edit says "other scholars", but both citations are articles by Michael Pietrusewky, discussing the same data on Ban Chiang in northern Thailand, with Anyang as one of several outside points of comparison. Any statements about Anyang are thus incidental to the main thrust of his work.  His dendogram (figure 3.6 in the book, figure 8 in the paper) does group Anyang with Taiwan and Hainan, but his sampling in China is thin, as it is not his main focus.  It does not support the claims about Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Jomon, all of which are placed further away than the other Chinese samples.  An additional problem is that the Anyang skulls he examined were of sacrificial victims, which were often war captives.  This all demonstrates that in a contentious area like the origins of peoples, our interpretations and deductions from research papers cannot be relied on.  We need reliable secondary sources focussed directly on the matter.


 * This is also what he says again in his ninth section.

To which Easy772 originally replied, "It's different interpretations on the same set of crania. I can easily find secondary sources."


 * And yet above, we have: Pietrusewsky. Thrice. Synthesis. Back-rendered to be about the Shang. Primary source.

Kanguole also noted that Easy772 also failed to cite properly. He did it again above, and Kanguole once again had to explain.


 * The fourth source, Keightley, is a 1983 work that suggests that the Shang sacrifices are likely simply locals, not distant populations, and could be everyday citizens of Anyang (although he does not rule out that some came from a distance). While I do think this is a RS, I'd like to point out it doesn't say that there were close similarities between these bronze-age Chinese remains, Hainanese and Taiwanese. Instead, it uses a metric showing skull similarities between the Anyang skulls, South Japan and North Japan. This is the opposite of what he's stating.


 * It also is an older work, so there isn't some of the more recent analysis on bone analysis for strontium/metals analysis, DNA or the like that would really help.


 * So essentially I guess my point is, aside from Keightley suggesting slaves are probably local in whatever value of local we're using, we're mostly repeating the very first conversation we had on this topic. No promised secondary sources, either. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 00:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by volunteer moderator
As previously mentioned, I would like to get this case closed by Friday, in accordance with the concept that this board is for light-weight moderated discussion. It doesn’t look as though this discussion will be wrapping up in three days, since one editor wants to add material on Craniometrics and another editor appears to object rather strongly. The scope of this discussion seems to keep increasing. We have two options that I can identify. First, the original focus of this discussion was about Language. We seem to have agreement there. We can agree that the Language edits that Kanguole has proposed be made, and that questions about them (such as knowledge level) can be discussed on the article talk page, and that other issues can be discussed on the article talk page. Second, we can transfer this thread to Formal Mediation. Should we just close this thread and take further discussion to the talk page, or should we request formal mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ogress - In response to your complaint about Easy772 adding replies to the comments of others, that is a side effect of the fact that I have requested comments by each editor in a separate section. The alternative would be threaded discussion. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-Up: Since the scope of this discussion is expanding, with new additions being suggested, I will be requesting formal mediation. Each editor can either agree or disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by Easy772
I think we need formal mediation and I would like to request for it. The "core issue" has shifted from the remains being non representative of Shang(Howells 1983 and subsequent works no longer even mention the possibility), to not having any secondary sources (revolving around a confusion that a secondary source needs to be third-party) and now the "relevance" and "age" of my sources are being attacked.

Regarding relevance of my physical anthropology sources: I think this also is subjective and we may need a neutral third party to determine how extensively a topic needs to be covered in deciding what should be considered relevant. Pietrusewsky has compared the Anyang remains to every series that he compared the Ban Chiang remains to. He extensively covers the bronze-age remains' relation to other populations past and modern and makes explicit conclusions on them based off of decades of research. Just because "Shang" isn't in the title, doesn't mean the work doesn't deal with the Shang remains extensively.

Regarding the "age" of my physical anthropology sources: This implies the similarity Howells (1983) notes or conclusions he makes are outdated. But, the similarity to bronze-age Chinese, Taiwanese and Hainanese Howells notes have continued to be observed to this day. I am unaware of anyone who still considers the skulls in his data set "non-Asian", but if you find later criticisms, feel free to post them and we can "balance" the section.

Regarding linguistics: I agreed that we should post Kanguoles draft, however I still feel my material undoubtedly meets the standards of Wikipedia and am conferring with a friend who is much more adept in linguistics than I, on where these should be posted and how to accurately word these. It may take some time, so this may have to be a later discussion. --Easy772 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by Kanguole
The core issue has always been the use of sources in relation to WP:NOR, especially primary sources and synthesis. The question of whether the victims were representative was just an example of the difficulties of interpreting primary sources. We seem to have got nowhere. Kanguole 20:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe mediation will be useful here. Since Easy772 says he wishes to pursue this, I would suggest that he clean up his draft (e.g. full citations, and attach them to the appropriate part of the text), post it on Talk:Shang dynasty, and post an RFC there asking whether the section as drafted should be included in the article. Kanguole 23:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by Ogress
Since Easy772 can only provide us with three articles by one scholar not on the topic of Shang and has found a RS that does not help unless it's used to interpret P's work, yes, I'd say I object strongly. Also for all the above reasons that show we haven't moved forward barely one step on this issue of craniometrics.

Also, for clarity: Easy772 keeps meta-replying in his statements, returning to add replies to the essays of others. Is that the procedure for the boards? It's hard to evaluate when he adds second or third essays to his existing stage X essay in order to immediately counter the essays of other editors. I had expected this would happen in stages, so that replies would be in the next section, i.e. 8, then 9, then 10 as time passes. Can anyone clarify this? I'm not often in DRN for this long. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 18:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)