Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 204

Jabir ibn Hayyan
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

Months ago an editor proposed to rewrite Jabir Ibn Hayyan's article : and pinged several other editors. Firstly i want to underline that i agree with almost all the other editor's work, but not with his opinion about some sources that were cited in the article, thus i took this to WP:RSN where two editors commented about the sources and dubbed them as being "reliable" and "ok". However, the other editor did not agree with that. Then the editor edited extensively the article and removed the 3 sources that were accepted at WP:RSN, arguing that he has cited better sources in the article that support an uncertainty about this scholar's ethnicity. When i tried to add back some sources that he removed while they were accepted at WP:RSN,, he reverted me : on the ground that "these sources mistakenly assume that there is no uncertainty over the matter". Now, we have been discussing extensively on the article's talk page about this :, but i feel that the thread is stalling while the other editor keeps editing the article claiming that his edit is a compromise without even waiting for my response before :. I don't ask for a rewrite of the main space of the article, i just want to add back some sources that support other views about Jabir's ethnicity, like i did here :.

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


 * WP:RSN :
 * article's talk page :, ,.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that per WP:NPOV, all the views should be sourced, as it stands, only sources that support an uncertainty about Jabir's ethnicity are represented, i want to add sources that support the 2 other views, thus those who say that he was an Arab and those who say that he was a Persian.

Summary of dispute by Apaugasma
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have from the very beginning of this dispute confirmed, and still do confirm, that the sources in question are generally very reliable. Rather, my concern was that they are inappropriate to cite in this context (per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). It was a bit brazen of me to describe this concern as "in context, however, they are not reliable at all", but taking this to WP:RSN, where only general reliability can realistically be assessed, was not a constructive way to deal with this. One undesirable result of this has been that I have felt hesitant to rewrite the section on Jabir's biography, choosing at first to only rewrite the rest of the article. When I finally did muster up the courage to rewrite the biography section, I did not include the sources in question, because I still felt that it would be WP:UNDUE to do so. However, recent discussion with Wikaviani has convinced me that they are indeed relevant to include, and that due weight can be given to them by keeping them in the footnote (as Wikaviani's own proposal did) and by not fully quoting them. The sources in question are now cited in the article, along with two other sources of a similar nature that I added on my own initiative. In response, it is now claimed that they should be cited in the main body of the article. In general, much of the discussion on Wikaviani's part has consisted of quoting policy on me, and it is only in their very last edit that they are clearly putting forward what they think should actually be done with the article (equally representing the views that Jabir was an Arab, that he was Persian, and that it is uncertain). Still, it should be clear from my repeated attempts to state my case why I would oppose such an equal treatment, and it seems that Wikaviani just does not want to engage with any of the arguments I presented. I am genuinely grateful for their intervention, since the article indeed needs some input from other editors, but I do think that the level of stress this has caused is unacceptable. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 18:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

First statement by moderator (Jabir)
I will act as the moderator for this content dispute. Please read the usual ground rules. You are responsible for understanding and following the rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask for an explanation rather than guessing, because I will not tolerate disregard of the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but do not necessarily inform the other participants. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not edit the article while this case is in progress. Answers to my questions should be addressed to me and to the community, not to each other. If you want to discuss anything with each other, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion. However, moderated discussion is done by dialogue with the moderator (at least when I am the moderator).

It appears that the issue, or one of the issues, has to do with what to say about Jabir's nationality. Both Arabs and Persians claim this great scholar as one of their own. Please summarize, in one or two paragraphs, what you think should be said about his nationality. Then we will see whether there is a mutually agreeable way to edit the article.

If there are any other issues, state them. If not, please say that there are no other issues except his nationality or ethnicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

First statement by Apaugasma
There are no other issues except for how to represent the scholarly views on Jabir's ethnicity. I believe that however we are going to represent these views, we should reach an agreement on (1) how to assign WP:DUE weight to the various sources who have expressed such views, and (2) how to represent that relative weight in the article.

As for (1), I believe that the view expressed by Kraus 1942–1943 and Delva 2017 (full citations here), which is that Jabir's ethnicity is uncertain, should carry the most weight. This is primarily because (A) these two sources are the only ones who have based their views on a systematic investigation of the medieval bio-bibliographical literature on Jabir, but also to some extent because (B) Kraus is the single most authoritative scholar in the field (for references, see the third paragraph here), and because (C) they supersede the older views of Ruska 1923 (that Jabir was Persian) and Holmyard 1927 (that Jabir was Arab), who were still working with a relatively small selection of Jabirian texts and bio-bibliographical sources. Scholarly views which only mention Jabir's ethnicity in the passing and without any discussion, such as Sarton 1927–1948, Newman 1996 and Forster 2018, should carry the least weight.

As for (2), I believe that only the view which carries the most weight should be summarized in the main text, and that those which carry less weight (because superseded or passing mentions) should be mentioned in the footnote. This is how the article is at the time of writing (1st paragraph of 'Biographical clues and legend'; note 21). What I think should in any case be avoided as WP:UNDUE is (A) fully quoting scholars who only make passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity, and (B) adding multiple numbered references in a row so as to draw attention to a particular view (see also the essay WP:CITEKILL). Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

First statements by Wikaviani
As i said below, i want to underline that all i want, is to add back some sources in the article ( 3 of the 4 sources i want to add back in the article were denied by Apaugasma, therefore, i took them at WP:RSN here, where they were said to be "reliable" and "ok" ). I'm aware of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, that's why i added back the sources with inline citations and without changing the main text of the article, but this was reverted by Apaugasma on the ground that these sources mistakenly assume that there is no uncertainty over Jabir's ethnicity. All i want, is to add the sources back, per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, in order to fairly represent and source all the views about Jabir ibn Hayyan's ethnicity (i.e Jabir being an Arab or a Persian or someone whose ethincity is not known). ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Jabir)
Maybe I understand, and maybe I don't.  The issue has to do with the discussion of Jabir's ethnicity. Are we in agreement that his ethnicity is uncertain? Is there any issue other than how to state the uncertainty of his ethnicity? Both of the statements above are relatively long, and so I may have misread something, but it appears that the question is whether to list sources stating the Arab conclusion and sources stating the Persian conclusion, or only those that say that his ethnicity is uncertain. If that is the issue, then perhaps the requirement for reliable sources is being taken a little too strictly. If his ethnicity has been a matter of dispute for centuries, then shouldn't we identify at least one source that says Arab and at least one source that says Persian, even if those sources are now considered questionable? If they are questionable, is it because they disagree and can't both be right? Shouldn't the reader be able to see what the scholarly disagreement is?

If that is the question, that is my comment. In any case, please state very briefly whether my interpretation is correct. If not, please be prepared each to provide a draft of what you think the article should say about his ethnicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by Apaugasma
Dear moderator, your interpretation is incorrect on the following points:


 * The question is not whether to also list sources stating the Arab conclusion and the Persian conclusion, because we all agree that such sources should be listed, and they are in fact listed in note no. 21 of the article. Two sources which say Arab and three sources which say Persian have been identified and fully cited there.


 * These five sources are not relegated to the footnote because they mutually disagree, but rather because two of them (Holmyard 1927 and Ruska 1923) are superseded by more recent and higher quality research, and because the other three only contain passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity that are not grounded in any research (neither original research nor citation of other secondary sources).

Thank you very much for your attention, Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by Wikaviani
The disagreement is about the quotes. I want to fully quote the sources that support an Arab or a Persian ethnicity ( like i did here ) while Apaugasma doesn't. Hope to have been clear. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Jabir)
I am asking each of the editors to provide a draft statement of what they want to put in the article about the ethnicity of Jabir, either with or without the requested quotes. Also, please state, in one paragraph, why the inclusion or exclusion of the quotes is more consistent with the principle of due weight, since this dispute appears to be about due weight rather than any other guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by Apaugasma
Jabir's ethnicity should be described in the article as it is now: the main text describing the view that his ethnicity is fundamentally uncertain as explained by Kraus 1942–1943 and Delva 2017, with one footnote (no. 21) referring to the superseded views of Ruska 1923 (Jabir was probably Persian) and Holmyard 1927 (Jabir was probably Arab). Because context matters, and because replicability is important, the passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity by Sarton 1927–1948 and Newman 1996 should be given the least prominence of all. Ruska's and Holmyard's research-based views from the 1920s predate the groundbreaking and widely cited studies of Kraus in the 1930s and 1940s, and are largely ignored by Jabir-scholars from the post-Kraus era such as Sezgin 1971, Plessner 1981, Lory 1989, and Nomanul Haq 1994 (none of whom think Jabir's ethnicity certain enough to even deserve mention). Ruska and Holmyard should be cited in the footnote as significant minority views, but literally quoting their dated arguments would be putting undue weight upon them. Even less justified would be to literally quote the passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity by Sarton 1927–1948 and Newman 1996, because these are not grounded in any research at all (neither primary research nor citation of other secondary sources). Quotes imply endorsement, and would serve only to create a false balance. However, the most important thing of all to avoid is adding multiple numbered references after one particular view, which would distort that view's prevalence in reliable sources by unduly attracting attention to it in the main body of the article. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 04:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by Wikaviani
The part about his background should be as it was here, per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, since all the added sources (Holmyard, Ragep, Sarton and Newman) are reliable for this topic ( see here ) and their views, even if they are, perhaps, less prominent than those of Delva or Kraus, should be literally quoted in the footnotes but not the main text, in order to comply with WP:DUEWEIGHT, as we don't need to have all the sources of an article being of equal prominence : "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Please note that in the version that i propose, all the main text of the article about Jabr's ethnicity is still from Kraus and Delva while Holmyard, Ragep, Sarton and Newman would be literally quoted only in the footnotes, this sounds like a fair representation of all significant viewpoints done in proportion to the prominence of each. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Jabir)
It appears that the only differences have to do with the inclusion or exclusion of some footnotes. I will again remind both of you that sometimes if you use too many words to make your case, they get in the way, and you have both been too wordy. I would like each editor to state, in one paragraph, why you think your approach is better.

Also, since there isn't much difference between what you are advocating, I will ask you to engage in back-and-forth discussion for 48 to 72 hours and see if you can reach an agreement. So your fourth statements may reply to each other, but also say, in one paragraph, why you should include or exclude the footnotes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Apaugasma
The research-based views that Jabir was Persian (Ruska 1923) and that he was Arab (Holmyard 1927) are outdated and have been superseded by the higher quality research of Kraus 1942–1943, as confirmed by the complete lack of mention of ethnicity among most later scholars. Isolated mentions like those of Sarton 1927–1948 and Newman 1996 do not cite any source at all (neither primary nor secondary). The views of these scholars are in the footnotes to avoid putting undue weight upon them. However, literally quoting these outdated or unsourced views in the footnotes would defeat that purpose, since quotes imply endorsement, especially if rendered without context, and would thus serve only to create a false balance. We should also contextualize the sources we cite, since they do not support the main text, but represent different views which are expressly kept out of the main text. This is done best by putting them in one footnote. Multiple numbered references create the false impression that sheer quantity determines scholarly prominence. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 02:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Because it is perhaps clearer to show than to tell, I have prepared a draft of the relevant part of the biography section which does include quotes, but also contextualizes them (see notes 5 and 6). If you would accept that draft as addressing your concerns, I would be happy to also accept it as a reasonable compromise. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 00:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Wikaviani
I want to literally quote ( in the footnotes only ) what Holmyard, Sarton and Newman say ( these sources have been dubbed as reliable by WP:RSN : here ) while the main text of the article remains based on Kraus and Delva's works, this sounds like a good compromise of as per WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT and makes verifiability easier for our readers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:DUEWEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV. Could you briefly explain what you mean by a compromise between the two? Do you believe they are at odds, and if so, how? Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 12:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Jabir)
It appears that the question at this point is whether the actual quotes about Jabir's ethnicity should be provided. My opinion is that, since Wikipedia will be saying that his ethnicity is a matter of dispute, there is little value in providing statements that we do not consider authoritative. If I have misunderstood, please say so. Back-and-forth discussion may continue for another period.

Is there any other issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not what was said at WP:RSN about the sources i want to quote : . Also, a look at their Wiki page is sufficient to see that these sources are authoritative : George Sarton, William R. Newman. However, if that's your decision, i have no problem with that, you can close this as i don't intend to keep discussing about this issue with Apaugasma anymore. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with closing and leaving the article as it is now (no quotes, no multiple numbered references) if that is what Wikaviani wishes. I am truly sorry that no compromise was reached. I have learned a lot about policy through this discussion, and I sincerely hope that I have not been alone in this. However, I regret having to say that I still feel stressed about the complete lack of any clear argument about the content. Wikipedia editors should not be subjected to such prolonged opposition against their good faith efforts if the opposing party is not willing to discuss how policy applies to disputed content. I know this is not the place for that, and there's little that can be done anyways, but I do want to express my belief that this is in its own way a very serious conduct issue. I made my own mistakes, and I will in the future do my very best to be less inflammatory, both in my actions (reverting was a particularly bad call here) and in the way I discuss. I thank you both for your time and your attention, Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 02:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statement by editor (Jabir)
This is only a clarification about what I meant by authoritative. Sarton and Newman are authoritative sources, that is, reliable academic sources, about the history of science. However, they cannot both be authoritative as to the ethnicity of Jabir, and so neither of them is authoritative on that point, on which there is disagreement. There is no authoritative source on that question, on which authoritative scholars disagree. So, in my opinion, there is no need for quotes that disagree, and it is sufficient to state that there is not an agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion may continue for 24 hours or until it becomes necessary to clarify anything else.


 * Sorry Robert, but with all due respect, what you're saying is in contradiction with WP:NPOV, all the sources do not need to be of equal prominence, and Sarton and Newman, prominent historians of science and chemistry, are certainly authoritative enough to be quoted in that article, and WP:RSN agreed with their reliability too (also, i did not change a single word of the article, i just added literal quotes of the cited sources, correct me if you think i'm mistaken, but that sounds like a normal practice in accordance with WP:DUEWEIGHT). Anyway, no worries, as i said above, i respect your decision. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Jabir)
If an editor wishes, I can compose a Request for Comments. Otherwise I will close this dispute as resolved by a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Jabir)
No need for a request for comments, i could post one myself if i thought that it would be helpful. Close this and let's move forward. Thank you for your time. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  04:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Jabir)
Firstly, i want to underline that all i want, is to add back 4 sources in the article ( 3 of the 4 sources i want to add back in the article were denied by Apaugasma, therefore, i took them at WP:RSN here, where they were said to be "reliable" and "ok" ). I'm aware of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, that's why i added back the sources with inline citations and without changing the main text of the article, but this was reverted by Apaugasma on the ground that these sources mistakenly assume that there is no uncertainty over Jabir's ethnicity. All i want, is to add the sources back, per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, in order to fairly represent and source all the views about Jabir ibn Hayyan's ethnicity (i.e Jabir being an Arab or a Persian or someone whose ethincity is not known). ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikaviani, could it be that you're still not aware that the source you cited as Ragep, Ragep & Livesey is really Newman 1996, as I already pointed out back at WP:RSN? Of course, citing Newman twice would be a bit redundant, so I left out Newman 1994. Finally, I replaced your citation of Holmyard 1928 (the introduction to a facsimile of an early modern pseudo-Geber translation) with Holmyard 1927, a scholarly paper which says the same thing but argues it on the basis of primary sources. May this perhaps change your perspective on things? Greetings, Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not about how many sources are included, thus, i have no problem with replacing Holmyard 1928 with 1927 or removing Newman 1994, but the remaining sources should be cited along with their quotes in the footnotes of the article. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, just wanted to make sure that you're aware that in my own proposal I did take care to cite all the scholarly views you wanted to add in the article. We're here for a moderated discussion though, so please answer the question of the moderator in a statement in the section above. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 11:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to make the following statement for clarity's sake, because I genuinely feel there may still be some confusion over this matter. The four sources that were added back in the edit that I (too boldly) reverted are, in order of occurrence: Holmyard 1928 (The Works of Geber, Translated by Richard Russell), Newman 1996 (The Occult and the Manifest among the Alchemists), Sarton 1927–1948 (Introduction to the History of Science), and Newman 1994 (Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist). In my compromise edit, I added a number of sources, including Holmyard 1927 (An Essay on Jābir ibn Ḥayyān), Newman 1996, and Sarton 1927–1948. Holmyard 1927 is a scholarly paper that contains the research behind the view expressed in Holmyard 1928. So of the four sources in question, I replaced one with a more scholarly equivalent and left out one (Newman 1994) because citing Newman twice would be redundant. The scholarly views of all three scholars involved (Holmyard's research-based argument that Jabir was Arab, and the passing mentions of Sarton and Newman of Jabir as "the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan") are all present in the article as it stands now. I hope this helps, Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 01:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, but as i said above, in my humble opinion, the sources should be cited properly, with page numbers and quotes in the footnotes. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Another very brief statement just for clarity's sake: since wikicode can be confusing, I invite everyone to a take look at the footnote (no. 21) in the live version of the article. Page numbers are present (except for Forster 2018, which as an online encyclopedia article has no page numbers), quotes are not. Hovering over (or in the mobile version, clicking on) the references brings up full citation. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 02:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wikaviani, I would like to ask you to consider striking Ragep from your third statement, or otherwise make clear that Newman is the actual author of that source. Wouldn't you agree that it would be unhelpful to perpetuate the confusion over this? Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries, as i said above, i don't care about how many sources are included, therefore, i have no problem with replacing Holmyard 1928 with 1927 or removing Newman 1994. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest to replace Holmyard 1928 with Holmyard 1927 and remove Newman 1994 and keep Sarton and the BRILL source from Ragep ( as you suggested above ), a contributor of encyclopedia of Islam with literal quotes in the footnotes, that's the best compromise we can find in my humble opinion. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with the concept of an edited volume (also, "multiauthor volume")? F. Jamil Ragep, Sally P. Ragep and Steven Livesey are the editors of that volume only, which means that they decided whom they would invite and accept to contribute to the volume, reviewed the individual authors' contributions, streamlined the different chapters, wrote an introduction, etc. They are in no way responsible for the views expressed by the contributing authors, which remain entirely their own. The individual chapters are very similar to papers published in journals, and to cite the editors of the volume (like Ragep) instead of the author of the chapter (like Newman) is akin to citing the editors of a journal instead of a journal article's author. It is utterly misleading, and I would like to ask to refer to the source by its author, Newman (1996). Also, if you have some time, I would like to ask you to consider reading it. It is very interesting, and it will give you a feel for how the source relates to Jabir's biography.


 * Yes, some form of quoting may be a good way to compromise. However, I would agree only if my concerns for contextualization could also be met. Perhaps we should discuss these concerns under my fourth statement? I think a good way to go about this would be to discuss each concern separately, so a brief question or comment on one of the things I wrote would be ideal. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 13:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will answer here, since it' the place that was mentioned by the moderator for back-and-forth discussion. I know that WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT are not at odds, i meant that my suggestion is the best compromise between you and me as per these two guidelines. Also, the inclusion of literal quotes will make verifiability easier for our readers. I have read only parts of that book, i'm quite busy in real life. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  09:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Your third statement and your original fourth statement did indeed quite clearly speak of WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT as two different guidelines which should both be respected, somewhat as if according more weight to some views than to others would not really be 100% neutral but still desirable for other reasons. That would be a common but nevertheless serious misunderstanding of policy, since WP:DUEWEIGHT is a fundamental part of and sine qua non for WP:NPOV: neutrality is achieved by representing various POVs according to their relative weight in the scholarly literature. Also, WP:VERIFY does not recommend to provide quotes for verification, and the actual reasons for providing quotes do not apply here; as the moderator observed, this dispute is really about due weight. But all that may be moot. It is perhaps clearer to show than to tell, so I have prepared a draft of the relevant part of the biography section which does include quotes, but also contextualizes them (see notes 5 and 6). If you would accept that draft as addressing your concerns, I would be happy to also accept it as a reasonable compromise. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 17:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Your draft is all but an acceptable solution, i'm sorry to say so, but your remarks about the sources that support a Persian ethnicity are completely irrelevant and are an obvious breach of WP:OR. Do you really think that Newman and Sarton, both prominent historians of sciences and chemistry are making some random claims about Jabir's ethnicity without any research ? I don't think that you and me are going to find a consensus about this, as our positions are at odds about the sources.


 * in my humble opinion, Apaugasma and i have been already discussing all this during a long time frame, i suggest that you, as the moderator, decide if literal quotes of the sources that have been judged as being reliable at WP:RSN can be useful for our readers or not, since after all, that's all that matters. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry to hear that you do not find this an acceptable solution. If you want to discuss further, I would like to ask you to avoid just naming a policy and saying that something is not in line with it. This does not constitute an argument, and is therefore not helpful. What would help, if you like, is to explain how and why this second proposal for compromise breaches WP:OR. I believe you may be confusing original research with research as such, which is in fact strongly encouraged on Wikipedia (did you know that being "well-researched" is one of the FAC criteria?). When sources A, B and C say P and source D says Q, the statement that "According to most sources, P. However, according to D, Q." is a novel claim that in itself does not occur in any reliable source, neither in A, B, C or D. Yet formulating statements of that kind is emphatically what Wikipedians are expected to do. What WP:OR asks of us is not to make any novel claims about P and Q (the subject material itself, or primary sources about it), but it is one of our core tasks to assess and to produce novel claims about A, B, C and D (the secondary sources). Stating that Sarton and Newman were "perhaps following Ruska" is speculative (and may be left out for this reason if you wish so), but not original research. Stating that "they did not cite any source for their views" is a crucial fact about these sources which, in this context, it is our very duty to convey. I hope this helps, Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 23:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but as i said above, i don't intend to discuss further this issue with you, no offense, but when the nominator says that William R. Newman, a historian of chemistry, is not authoritative for an article about a ... chemist, then i think that there is just nothing else to add. Happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misunderstood the moderator: he does not (and I most certainly do not) claim that Newman is not an authoritative scholar, but rather that there is little value in adding Newman 1996's unauthoritative view on Jabir's ethnicity. This subtle difference is absolutely crucial for Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope you will some day come to appreciate it. Thank you for the time you put into this, and happy editing. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 00:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)
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 dispute pertain to several areas regarding the issue of tables on the page, and include, but are not limited to:


 * whether there needs to be a table for contestant progress and lip syncs at all;
 * whether the usage of "HIGH" and "LOW" on the table constitutes Original Research;
 * whether the table(s) fail(s) MOS:ACCESS;
 * the improper process of challenging a consensus for almost all reality game shows on the talk page of one specific series of one specific show - at the very least, all other 22 series of Drag Race across the world have not had such disputes and the argument would apply to all of these pages as well;
 * the page having been fully locked for 9 days and semi-protected prior to that;
 * what constitutes FANCRUFT and what doesn't.

Both this page, and its Series 1 counterpart, have had a similar sequence of events occur, although the dispute is "only" taking place on the talk page of UK Series 2. The tables were changed without consensus, and it just so happens that the "axe" of full protection has "fallen" whilst the "new" versions are in place, enraging many IP addresses as can be noted by the long list of edit requests.


 * The argument for changing or removing the table:
 * existing tables violate MOS:ACCESS;
 * existing tables are FANCRUFT


 * The argument for retaining the "old" table:
 * it has not been an issue since 2009 and all other Drag Race articles (in all versions) have said tables, thereby establishing a local consensus;
 * many, many tables are known to fail MOS:ACCESS, such as WP:F1 which was established in October 2020, and noted at WT:TV this month;
 * the tables may not necessarily be FANCRUFT as they are not excessively detailed - changing entries other than "WIN" or "BTM2" to "SAFE" creates a false impression of a consistently middling performance.

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

Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) No clear consensus can be established, it would seem. It should be noted that there appears to be a vocal minority pushing loudly for them to be changed.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help to establish a new consensus for TV show progress tables, or at the very least just the Drag Race ones. This requires a definitive answer to the following:


 * do these tables fail MOS:ACCESS;
 * are these tables FANCRUFT;
 * how much detail should be in said tables (i.e. HIGH/LOW);
 * establish whether the discussion should take place elsewhere;
 * emphasise the consequences of any decision, and potentially facilitate a rollout to all Drag Race pages of any changes.

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

Summary of dispute by RandomCanadian
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * Suggest procedural decline Too many accounts involved; too many fanatic WP:SPAs who have established a wikiproject local consensus; already a discussion on talk page; which if it is closed by anybody who has half a sense of policy and WP:NOTAVOTE shouldn't be too hard to implement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the question "how to establish a new consensus on policy"? The usual place is at the appropriate central discussion boards, where experienced editors and not just people from one wikiproject will be able to weight in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cyruslcohen556
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Guy Macon
I have no strong feelings about the page (I have never seen the show and did not know who RuPaul was until I saw this dispute come up on a noticeboard) but my opinion is that the "Contestant progress" table should be removed, not just from this page but also from all related pages.

I don't think that such charts are encyclopedic, and consider the material in the "episodes" sections to be more than adequate.

I don't think that anyone except the most rabid fancruft lover cares about how each round went after the show ends with a winner. Some fans like to follow along during the show, but the episodes sections have all the information those fans need.

As for the "other pages have this so there is a consensus" argument, I did a quick review of the following pages (including a sampling of the "season X" subpages)... ...and saw nothing like the Drag Race "Contestant progress" tables.
 * Strictly Come Dancing / Dancing with the Stars
 * Britain's Got Talent / America's Got Talent
 * Britain's Next Top Model / America's Next Top Model

I would also note that this is not even close to being the worst example. Look at the dumpster fire that is RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 2). Fifteen confusing color coded categories for ten contestants...

Finally, do we really need to have many times more words (spread over multiple pages) covering this one TV show than we have covering all of world war two? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good points, Guy. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lil-Unique1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Yellowmellow45
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by CCamp2013
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by Candyo32
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Eagle2ch
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by Lauren-mae69
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Charlie Dizon
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

I have raised it in WP:AN but a certain user said that I must raise this issue here.

I have not discussed this issue on the article's talk page but the user is not active as of today.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute pertain to several areas regarding the issue of edits on the page, and include, but are not limited to:


 * whether there needs to be a qualification to say that an award is notable or not;
 * whether it falls in WP:AFG.

The issue here is that if an award won by a celebrity is not notable, is there an alternative for that before inserting it in a celebrity's article?


 * The argument for qualification of an award:
 * some awards are not notable unless there is an corresponding valid source


 * The argument for the falling of an edit in WP:AFG:
 * because some edits are not considered as vandalism, unless there is an investigation.

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

Talk:Charlie Dizon Not yet.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?


 * Inform the users that we must abide in the terms that is included in Notability (awards) before editing an article of a celebrity.
 * We must also think first before reverting an edit.

African American Vernacular English
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 subject wiki user, generalrelative, has continued to undo my edits, and is now actively harassing me. The basic premise is a matter of Enlglish construction - proper nouns are capitalized, common nouns are not. Yet he continues to capitalize black. Black is a color, it is not akin to, African, or French, or English - because these are proper nouns. He continues to revert my edits, without justification. The rules of basic grammar apply.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African-American_Vernacular_English&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BlauGraf

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Direct generalrelative to stop reverting my edits, and direct that the rules of English grammar be obeyed - only capitalization shall apply to proper nouns.

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

African American Vernacular English discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - This is not an article content dispute, and is not about African American Vernacular English. This is a Manual of Style issue about the capitalization of "Black" when it is used as a proper adjective for racial or ethnic groups.  The proper place for discussion, as has been noted by one editor, is WP:MOSCAPS.  I am leaving this thread open at least for the time being in order to facilitate getting this dispute addressed in the proper place.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Dave Anthony
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 attempting to add information about the life of the subject of this page, it has bearing who the subject is as a person. I can show other examples of similar information being included in BLPs. Another editor is bouncing back and forth between calling this defamatory, bloated, unimportant, misidentifying the source as the subject's own podcast, invalidating the use of primary sources in general, and saying that I should not be editing this page because I am a fan of the subject. I am also a fan of clean water and kittens, I happened to haven choosen to edit this page, and the other editor seems hellbent on stopping any edits I make. S/he/they have been notified that I will be filing this dispute resolution request.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dave_Anthony

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like the information about the subject growing up with neglectful parents and struggling with his mental health to be included in the article.

Summary of dispute by Bonadea
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have not been notified of this dispute report, but I saw it anyway. The editor opening the report posted to the article talk page after restoring the material a couple of times, but has not responded to my reply there. The issue at hand is that the article presented negative information about non-notable people (the parents of the subject), supported only by a primary source. I do not see how WP:BLP allows for that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Rent control_in_the_United_States
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 have serious doubts about the neutrality of this article and about the warlike behaviour of some of the users who are custodians of the content of this article.

The article is intended to describe an economic technique called rent control (in the United States). As I explain in the Talk section, there are multiple reasons why I consider this article to be non-neutral, deliberately ideologically driven and unscientific. In particular, some users want to keep as the second sentence of the article an statement that is false, not relevant and based on opinion polls or personal assessments: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". This information is misleading and does not reflect the current state of economic science. It is also inappropriate as the second sentence of the article, as it is a sentence with political connotations. It is not well quoted. Moreover, the sentence itself does not even reflect what the opinion poll (already biased because it is the opinion of a few economists) purports to measure.

Some users also seek to highlight results of opinions and opinion polls and to minimise or obscure results of recent studies published in peer-reviewed impact journals.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States#On%20%22consensus%20among%20economists%22

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think editors should remove the sentence from the introduction of the article (i.e. remove "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing").

Once this is done, editors should remove a lot of non-relevant, opinion-based, ideological text (in particular, the first paragraph of the "Impact" section).

Once this is done, I think the page should be protected.

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

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

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

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

Coos Bay, Oregon
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've posted my addition to the article before, revised it like they'd want and posted it, and they keep removing it and telling me I'm in the wrong and how I should discuss it in the talk section, but then when I go there they don't talk to me about it. All my info has reliable citations.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coos_Bay,_Oregon

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Either try to provoke decent discussion or keep my revision up on the grounds that extensive discussion was never attempted.

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

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

Summary of dispute by Kaseng55
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Coos Bay, Oregon discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Please can the filing editor Coosbay541 notice the users mentioned on their talk page with the template. Seemplez &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Levine
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

Rachel Levine is a public official in the United States of America. She is also transgender. She is very well known for her transition, and even better known as being the likely Assistant Secretary of Health in the United States. As a public official, her former name is of public interest. It should not be excluded/prohibited from her article. I know of no objection from her; she's a public official who's very open/honest about her transition. It's not right to assume she's ashamed. This is not an instance of 'deadnaming'.

For instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/meet-rachel-levine-one-of-the-very-few-transgender-public-officials-in-america/2016/06/01/cf6e2332-2415-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GorillaWarfare#An_objective,_apolitical_fact.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As a public official, her birth name should be included somewhere in the article.

Summary of dispute by GorillaWarfare
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Opertinicy has not engaged at the article talk page, where this has been discussed at length. MOS:DEADNAME is clear, and the talk page discussion agrees, that Levine's previous name should not be included as she was not notable under that name. In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name... If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Roderic O'Gorman
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 wanted to cite a valid source from Gript.ie news but an editor won't let me change the contents, I also tried using a youtube video link but again the same editor wouldn't let me use this either. He keeps undoing it.

I also disputed the use of the term 'far right'. for example one line reads .. "at a rally held against O'Gorman outside Dáil Éireann by members of the Irish far-right". I pointed out that there is no organisation in Ireland called 'the far right' and therefore how could there be members of an organisation that doesn't exist. but I wasn't allowed to change that line either.

I would appreciate if someone could take a fresh look at it as I'm not familiar with all of the wikiepedia rules.

Thank You

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roderic_O%27Gorman

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think You can resolve the dispute by looking at the changes I wanted to make to see if they are reasonable and by Determining why using Gript.ie as a source is not being allowed by the editors having regards to the rules of wikipedia and the link in question I wanted to use.

thank you

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

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

Roderic O%27Gorman discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There is an article content dispute that has been discussed at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman. This filing is incomplete in two respects.  First, there are other editors involved besides those listed.  Second, the editors have not been notified.  Continue discussion at the article talk page.  If you want to request moderated discussion, list all of the involved editors here, and notify them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

JA21
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 dispute revolves around the political position of JA21, specifically the inclusion of 'far-right' (or 'centre-right') alongside 'right-wing'. Confirmed sock puppets have been used in the discussion, as well as new accounts.

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

Talk:JA21 I have tried referring to Wikipedia Policy, in particular those surrounding NPOV. I have added additional reliable sources.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing insight on whether the sources that characterize JA21 are reliable and plentiful enough to be included in light of balance and NPOV.

Summary of dispute by Historicus9
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by Shadow4dark
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Goalkeeper87
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

JA21 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Knights of the Golden Circle
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:Beyond My Ken is constantly reverting my edits as well as any other edit to the article that doesn't follow what he has in mind, specifically regarding the opening line "The Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC) was a secret society founded in 1854 whose existence was not, in fact, a secret.", which I initially removed due to my belief that it wasn't wiki-like (seriously, show me another article that has that type of start and not a short summary of sorts). He's also acting kind of obnoxious about it, like he "owns" the article.

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

We've been discussing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle#About_the_lead for a while now. Every attempt I've had at trying to work things through with him here has fallen on deaf ears or has resulted in him trying to use Wikipedia guidelines against me. That big reply you see from him basically says "You're not good in my eyes, so you can't edit this."

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I don't know, since this is my first time actually reporting or whatever. I guess you could send someone over to make a compromise or offer a third opinion or something? Like, this is one line, and I don't want to spend an entire month butting heads with this guy, but at the same time, I also don't feel like letting this guy just block every edit he personally doesn't think is right. I know he's infinitely more experienced at Wikipedia than me, but still. He can't just block people off forever.

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
This is a trivial matter which has had minimal discussion on the article talk page. There is no need for dispute resolution at this time, so I will not be participating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Knights of the Golden Circle discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Rent control in the United States
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

Two Wikipedia articles, namely "Rent control in the United States" and "Rent regulation", contain a statement that reads as follows: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". I have tried unsuccessfully to debate with three of the users who seem to be the custodians of this article to make them see that this statement is false and that the article, such as it is, has a serious problem of lack of neutrality. My arguments have only been partially heard by one of the users, who seems more open to editing the article. I would nevertheless like to ask for help here again, since the case at hand is a blatant case of lack of neutrality that seems not to be resolved among the users who are the most active custodians of the article. Proponents of the claim use these sources:

1) An article by Blair Jenkins (of whom we do not even know if she has a PhD in economics), who has no other publications on this subject and whose article is published in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Furthermore, the article argues that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions"(16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". Is this a consensus? No. Is it a reproducible and sufficiently consistent article that it can stand alone to make such a claim? No. Is the publisher neutral? No. The Journal Econ Journal Watch is published by a self-declared "conservative" and "libertarian" think tank called Fraser Institute.

2) An opinion survey without peer review and isolated interviews.

3) One report by another self-declared "liberal" think tank.

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

I have provided consistent arguments for weeks here:. Also, here:

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Maintaining the claim in these articles implies a significant ideological bias and a serious lack of neutrality. My position is that the sentence should be removed. If the sentence is to be retained, then for the sake of truth, we should at least edit it to say something like: "According to one study published by a libertarian think tank, most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available", while 23% of economists have reservations or disagree".

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

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

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

Rent control in the United States discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer Note- Please reduce this to one issue on one page. We cannot decide an issue on two pages at one time. Secondly- There has been almost no conversation in two weeks. Finally, there is a consensus that exists on the talk page, the DRN cannot overturn that. If you doubt the validity of sources- I would recommend trying WP:RSN, if you want more eyes on this I recommend WP:RFC, but I do not believe a DRN will be successful at this point. However, I will leave this open to see if another volunteer believes they can be of use. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note- also- you must include ALL users that have been involved with the discussion (Do not include me- I was not involved with the issue- just with trying to help with behavior and I have no desire to participate in the discussion here.) And all involved users must be notified on their talk page. This has not been done yet. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fayum mummy portraits
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

Regarding the population of Ancient Egypt stated on the page. The referenced one stated that 7-10 million natives was there with no support with respect to the logic followed to make such claim. My references say it's 3-5 million at most, and it addresses the other wrong estimate of 8-10 million. And my reference states the population as whole Greco-Roman Egypt to be 3-5 million including all ethnicities. My reference also more logical as Egypt population in 20th century didn't exceed 11 million, in 19th century it was by all good estimates 4.23 million. How come only the natives at Greco-Roman period to be 7-10 millions while life conditions at that time, don't allow for such figure to exist. In summary my problem in major two issues:
 * the population figure 7-10 million is overestimation.
 * The disputed figure of 7-10 million represents all Greco-Roman population, not just the natives as stated in the article.

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


 * []
 * []

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think either removing the statement of 7-10 million native Egyptian or stated both sources that some estimate it to be 7-10 million and other sources 3-5 million and that's for all population, not just the natives.

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