Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 250
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 245 | ← | Archive 248 | Archive 249 | Archive 250 |
Contents
- 1 Wudu
- 1.1 Summary of dispute by Abo_Yemen
- 1.2 Wudu discussion
- 1.3 Zeroth statement by moderator (Wudu)
- 1.4 First statement by moderator (Wudu)
- 1.5 First statements by editors (Wudu)
- 1.6 Zeroth statements by editors (Wudu)
- 1.7 Second statement by moderator (Wudu)
- 1.8 Second statement by Nasserb786
- 1.9 Second statement by Abo Yemen
- 1.10 Third statement by moderator (Wudu)
- 1.11 Third statement by Nasserb786
- 1.12 Third statement by Abo Yemen
- 1.13 Fourth statement by moderator (Wudu)
- 1.14 Fourth statement by Nasserb786
- 1.15 Fourth statement by Abo Yemen
- 2 USA
- 3 Nivkh alphabets
- 3.1 Summary of dispute by Kwamikagami
- 3.2 Nivkh alphabets discussion
- 3.3 Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.4 Zeroth statements by editors (Nivkh)
- 3.5 First statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.6 First statements by Kwami (Nivkh)
- 3.7 First statements by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.8 Second statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.9 Second statements by Kwami (Nivkh)
- 3.10 Second statements by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.11 Third statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.12 Third statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.13 Third statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.14 Fourth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.15 Fourth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.16 Fourth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.17 Fifth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.18 Fifth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.19 Fifth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.20 Sixth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.21 Sixth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.22 Sixth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.23 Seventh statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.24 Seventh statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.25 Seventh statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.26 Eighth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.27 Eighth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.28 Eighth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.29 Ninth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.30 Ninth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.31 Ninth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 3.32 Tenth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
- 3.33 Tenth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
- 3.34 Tenth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
- 4 Jessica Nabongo
- 5 Barb horse
Wudu
Closed as abandoned by filing editor. The filing editor has not edited for a week, and this discussion is now being closed. Continue discussion at the article talk page, Talk: Wudu. If discussion on the article talk page is again lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here to resume discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
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 On June 25, 2024 Abo Yemen deleted content from article Wudu. The content has been there since before February 2, 2016. Since February 2, 2016 there have been approximately 500 edits from multiple users and the content has remained. I have tried to add back this content and Abo Yemen keeps reverting. Note i have been thanked by user Phefeni for adding the old content back. Abo Yemen view is as below these are references, not text that should be part of the main article. Plus most of them are redundant and really.. useless since there are other sources already. Ill try to include them if it's needed tho dont worry I dont see how including all the views of the 5 scholars is needed. Only one is enough adding useless info before 8 years doesn't make it credible. this article survived on wikipedia for 10 years but that doesn't make it real. My view is as below The reason you we should include the 5 scholars is to show transparency and the reference to reliable publications support the content that Wikipedia contains so readers can verify the facts at source. The article needs to distinguish clearly between the translation of wiping and washing the feet which has been translated by famous scholars noted with links Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali. All these scholars have wiki pages associated to them. I have clearly identified the item that needs to be restored on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Wudu#Restoration_of_an_old_version_of_the_article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? the removed content too be added back and protect this part of the content from future attack's. Summary of dispute by Abo_YemenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Starting on 14:09, 16 June 2024 I have started doing some copy-edits to the wudu article with the goal of trying to promote the article to GA class by removing every useless, uninformative, and un-encyclopedic stuff in order to make the article more useful and readable. Now Nasserb786, who as he claims wants to add the names of translators of the quran for some reason (which is based on his original research btw instead of adding sources), kept on reverting the article to this version that he have wrote back in 2016 (and this version is the one where he added the name of the 5th translator) instead of actually adding the part that he claimed that he wanted to add to the article and did so by edit warring by reverting the article to his 2016 edit and after reverting his edits he started using my talkpage for discussing his restoration of the old and bad version of the article 3 times [1] [2] [3] with each time i've told him to discuss his edits on the article's talk page. The rest of the "dispute" happened on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article Abo Yemen✉ 13:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Wudu discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Wudu)I am ready to conduct moderated discussion, if the editors are ready. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to these discussion rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask questions, and you are asked to address your answers to the moderator and the community. Notice to another editor must be on their user talk page. Notice on an article talk page is not sufficient. A notice not to post to the user talk page of another editor should be honored, with a very few exceptions, and one of them is that noticeboard notices must be placed on the user talk page, and an editor is required and permitted to put such notices on a user talk page, even if they have otherwise been told not to post to that page. However, Abo Yemen has made a statement here, and notice is not required to an editor who has made a statement here. So discussion can begin. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state concisely what changes they wish to make to the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what changes the other editor wants to make that they want to leave the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Wudu)User:Nasserb786, User:Abo Yemen - Inviting an editor who has made 4 edits and has not edited the page in question appears to be meatpuppetry. Inviting editors who have participated in a discussion to come to DRN is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC) I am asking each editor to state concisely what changes they wish to make to the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what changes the other editor wants to make that they want to leave the same. First statements by editors (Wudu)
Zeroth statements by editors (Wudu)Second statement by moderator (Wudu)User:Nasserb786 has provided a paragraph, and I think that they are saying that they want to add it to the article in the section on Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims. Are they asking to add it to the existing section, or to replace the existing section with it? Does User:Abo Yemen agree to that addition? If not, do they have any other changes that they want to make, or do they want to leave the section unchanged? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by Nasserb786Yes, its to add back this content that was in place since February 2, 2016. This content was removed by Abo Yemen on June 25, 2024. Second statement by Abo YemenThird statement by moderator (Wudu)Are the seven quotes that Nasserb786 wants to include actually seven versions or translations of the same original? Is that what this dispute is about? What is the reason for including seven versions of the same hadith? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Third statement by Nasserb786Question. Are the seven quotes that Nasserb786 wants to include actually seven versions or translations of the same original? Answer. No. These are 7 separate hadiths Each with their own reference number. Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 164 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 167 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 185 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 186 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 161 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 190 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 196 Question. Is that what this dispute is about? Answer. No. Dispute is to add back the content that Abo Yemen keeps removing. The are are 2 content sections that need to be added back. 1 Content referring to the scholars who have translated the verse to washing the feet. The reason we should include the scholars is to show transparency, support to the translation of washing the feet and reference to reliable publications to support the content the article contains so readers can verify the facts at source. 2 Content referring to the 7 separate hadiths. See reason below Question. What is the reason for including seven versions of the same hadith? Answer. To include the content of the 7 different snippets of the sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad further collaborates the translation of washing the feet and adds support to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Third statement by Abo YemenFourth statement by moderator (Wudu)It appears that one of the editors wishes to include seven hadiths about washing the feet that appear to say the same thing, probably because they are seven different translations of the same original. Is that correct? If so, is there any other dispute? If the issue is the inclusion of seven hadiths that repeat the same statement, then please explain why, in your opinion, the inclusion is supported by or is not supported by the principle of balance. If this discussion does not resolve the dispute, we should probably request a third opinion from WikiProject Islam on the question of due weight and balance. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by Nasserb786Fourth statement by Abo YemenReferences
|
USA
Closed as improperly filed and as premature. There does not appear to have been any discussion either at an article talk page or on the talk page of the other editor. Also, the topic listed in the filing is not the topic described by the filing editor. The filing editor is advised to register an account. The editors are advised to discuss any issues at an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
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 user keeps on changing the info of the lord of the rings war of rohirrim and he won’t stop editing. I trying to fix the info but he keeps coming back.please do something to temporarily block him or something How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The distribution section in the lord of the rings war of the rohirrim How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By blocking Adamstom.97 temporary? Summary of dispute by Adamstom.97Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
USA discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Nivkh alphabets
Closed as being edited normally. The instructions for DRN say not to edit the article. Rule A.5 says: Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.Since the edits by Kwamikagami were made in good faith in response to a request to work out compromise wording (which I intended to be worked out in user or draft space), I will do a general close rather than failing the mediation. Resume normal editing, with discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Nivkh alphabets. I would normally give an instruction to report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but I don't think that is necessary, because the editors have not been uncivil or disruptive. So please continue to be civil. If discussion at the article talk page becomes lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
|
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 Good day! Initially, the dispute began because of my moderation of the specified article. I just rechecked in what form the link in the specified form has the current alphabet. My other opponent ignored this fact, and began to insist that the letters he replaced are allographs, but no convincing evidence was shown, and for some reason now I have to prove the opposite. My other opponent behaves as if the colonizer knows more than other natives and is trying to teach them to read and write. Sorry, maybe for the unfortunate analogy. But the evidence provided is more like OR. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[4]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either the opponent will provide other, more convincing evidence, or roll back the edits to match the ALREADY EXISTING references in the article. Summary of dispute by KwamikagamiThese letter variants are allographs, per sources, and both variants are acceptable for the writing of Nivkh and many other languages of Siberia. (For example, ⟨Ң⟩ with a ticked tail and ⟨Ӈ⟩ with a curved tail, and similarly with other letters in the series, e.g Қ/Ӄ and Ҳ/Ӽ.) AFAICT, Modun has failed to provide a single source to the contrary, and is relying solely on WP:TRUTH. We have as one source, in a discussion about why it was a mistake for Unicode to assign separate characters to these curved ⟨Ӈ⟩ letter variants, and the reasons Unicode has refused to do the same for additional letters (e.g. a curved variant of ⟨Ҷ⟩ che), by an expert in some of the languages in question (namely N. and E. Khanty and Nenets), an account of how a an influential textbook publishing house (Education Ltd.) created the curved-tail glyphs as in-house variants of these letters for their primers, primary-grade textbooks and other materials when publishing in the govt-assigned alphabet. This is part of a series of discussions involving multiple linguists working on these languages. We also have recent govt publications, in Nivkh, using the original ticked (e.g. ⟨Ң⟩) forms of the letters, including formal material such as trade documents. That is, both forms are in use in the modern era. Modun keep providing sources that use the Education variants of the letters, e.g. ⟨Ӈ⟩, as if they somehow negates the other. Modun has reverted the addition of the ticked variants to the alphabet charts and deleted a reference to the Unicode discussion, replacing it with a 'cn' tag. There's nothing suggesting Nivkh is special in this regard. It's a general feature of these letters across the minority languages of Siberia, no more significant than the difference between double-loop ⟨g⟩ vs script ⟨ɡ⟩ in English, and unusual only in that Unicode (mistakenly) assigned them separate codes. For Khanty, another language of Siberia that uses some of these letters, we recently found an orthography committee who decided that the curved-tail variants ⟨Ӈ Ԓ⟩ are to be preferred. At the same time, the principle Khanty language journal has gone in the opposite direction, using a third variant, ⟨Ӊ Ӆ⟩ with a diagonal tail. Modun insists these are different alphabets, despite no evidence for that idea, because allographs supposedly do not occur in Cyrillic. When I pointed out the extensive allography between Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian, he said those were "font" differences. Well, these are "font" differences too: Education Ltd created their own font for their textbooks. Because two graphic variants are used for these letters in Nivkh, both by official sources, both should be included in the article. We should presumably stick to one for the examples for consistency, but the alphabet charts should reflect what people actually use. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Nivkh alphabets discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and say that you agree to the ground rules. In particular, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It is not resulting in any progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I will ask a question that I usually ask at the beginning of moderated discussion. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Do not explain the reasons why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged, at this time. We will go into the reasons later, but at this time I am only asking what the issues are, not why there are issues. I understand that there are issues about original research; we can go into them later. However, if there are issues about the reliability of sources, please state them at this time, so that we can ask about them at the reliable source noticeboard. If there are multiple points in the article that are in dispute, please provide a concise list. Please state concisely what the content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Nivkh)
And after 1979, modern alphabets already looked like this: 1
Vladimir Sangi (one of the authors of the alphabet) mentions that the alphabets for both dialects were adopted by the Council of Ministers (government) of the RSFSR in 1979. Perhaps if we could find this document, we would clarify the situation in what form the modern alphabet was adopted.7, 8--Modun (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Nivkh)Thank you for stating what the content issues are. On the one hand, the statements are not concise. I requested concise statements, but I recognize that that may be difficult. So I have a two-part follow-up request. First, please indicate the sections and paragraphs of the article that you want your changes made to. Second, please see whether you can make your statement of what you want to change more concise. If what you have provided is the most concise possible summary, because the issues are complicated, at least it will help to see what paragraphs are being discussed. A third question is whether either editor has questions about the reliability of a source. If so, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for an opinion on the source. Are there any other content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC) First statements by Kwami (Nivkh)These are the edits I would like reversed. Section: Cyrillic alphabet
Section: Alphabet Correspondence Table
— kwami (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC) First statements by Modun (Nivkh)Section: Cyrillic alphabet
Otherwise, there are no global disagreements.--Modun (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Nivkh)It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters. (By the way, do each of those lists of eight letters consist of four upper case letters and four lower case letters?) Is that the main issue? If so, what sources do you have to that effect about these groups of letters (that they are allographs, or that they are different)? Is the question about the reliability of sources, or interpretation of the sources, or are you using different sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Second statements by Kwami (Nivkh)Yes, those are 4 letters, each in capital and lower case, and each in two allographic variants. Yes, IMO too this is a matter of RSs. There are RSs to support my argument, and AFAIK there are no contrary RSs. At least, none have been presented so far. If Modun can produce RSs, then we would have a conflict of sources; so far AFAICT we do not. First, there is a series of threads on the Unicode discussion board about these specific letters. Participants include linguists who specialize in the Siberian languages that use them. An example is here: L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280). There are multiple experts in those discussions who say that these are allographs, the only dispute being whether they are completely interchangeable or whether one variant is to be preferred. It would be like people arguing over whether double-loop 'g' or script 'ɡ' is correct for English: double-loop 'g' is more common, but some publishers prefer script 'ɡ', and that's what's generally used for literacy material. Even if people strongly prefer one over the other, both are found. We've had an argument that Unicode and the linguists participating in those discussions are irrelevant. The debate is relevant to Unicode because Unicode doesn't normally encode allographs. The consensus now is that it was a mistake to encode the rounded letters Ӄ ӄ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ. They should only have encoded Қ қ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and left it to the font to handle the letter forms, just as publishers who prefer script 'ɡ' for English typeset it as the regular ASCII 'g' and choose a font that displays it the way they like. Unicode has decided therefore that they will not encode any more of these letters and make a bad situation worse. The situation is bad because words can now be encoded multiple different ways with no difference in meaning. A search engine therefore has to treat Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ as being the same 3 letters as Қ Ң Ҳ or people won't be able to reliably seach in texts or online. Search engines do not always accommodate the idiosyncrasies of small languages, so this can be a problem. Modun objects that that Unicode source does not address Nivx specifically. However, these letters were created in the 1930s for all of the languages of Siberia, which until then had been written in Latin. Nivx was just one of many, and the same publisher's typefaces are used for all of them. If Nivx were different from the others in this regard, it could be used as an argument for encoding these letters. However, according to sources, none of the languages that use these letters make a distinction between their different forms. The ref above describes how a single textbook publishing house, Prosveschenie ('Enlightenment' or 'Education'), created an in-house typeface that had rounded forms of these letters. There are no other differences -- that is, these aren't new alphabets. Prosveschenie was highly influential, and their textbooks are how many speakers of these languages learned to read. Therefore there is an idea among some speakers that the rounded Prosveschenie letters are the correct forms. However, Russian government ministries continue to use the original ticked forms. For example, here is the UN Declaration of Human Rights in Nivx and Russian. As you can see, they use the ticked allographs in the title of the doc and throughout the text. The fact that it's the modern alphabet is shown both by the date (2014) and by the fact that it uses all of the new letters that were introduced to the Nivx alphabet in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў (thanks to Modun for pointing out that orthographic revision). Again, these new letters appear in both the title and the text. What we have therefore is a recent, official Nivx text (the official Nivx translation of the UNDHR) that uses the modern orthography with the ticked allographs of these letters, as well as statements by linguists working on the languages of Siberia that a single influential publishing house created the rounded forms, and that the difference is allographic. — kwami (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by Modun (Nivkh)The Declaration of Human Rights in the Nivkh language, to which my opponent refers, was translated and published not by the Russian government, but by some third-party private organizations. For example, the said declaration was published by a non-governmental printing house with the financial support of "Sakhalin Energy Investment Company LTD", the state did not invest a kopeyka in the publication of this translation of the document. Secondly, there are also some questions about the quality of such translations. Here is an example of how such publishers released translations: altay, even, shor. Some were published with an unknown version of the alphabet in the corresponding languages, or with a broken encoding. (And this, by the way, is now attached to the UN website) As for the "common alphabet projects" of the 1930s, in specific languages they may differ from the common projects, since in specific languages the projects are adjusted to the orthography of their language. For example, the alphabets of the languages of the peoples of the Caucasus differ greatly from the "Yanalif" project (new script). In addition, they were published by the Ucpedgiz (Учпедгиз, Uchpedgiz) publishing house, which is the same Prosveshchenie (Просвещение) that my opponent criticizes for allegedly "imposing" its version of letters. But this company is a state publishing house. Thirdly, there is no more evidence (at least for some reason it has not been additionally presented, which I asked for) that the indicated letters are "allographs". All modern educational materials on the Nivkh language consistently adhere to one version of the alphabet. Sociolinguists monitoring the state of this language also provide this version of the alphabet on their website. Unfortunately, due to inconsistent policy, we now have a situation where for some languages the alphabetic base and composition of letters have changed quite often. For example, in Sámi, the alphabet has changed quite often over the past hundred years. And it also distinguishes between the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң", otherwise it would cause confusion because of the other letter "Ӊ".The source my opponent refers to is simply a working correspondence within UNICODE. It does not consider specific situations, "how acceptable is such a replacement?" (In my example with the Kildin Sámi language) Therefore, I believe that some additional sources are needed to confirm that such a replacement is specifically acceptable in the Nivkh language. Perhaps native speakers simply do not see the difference because they are not specialists in this field and simply proceed from the real situation of their language.--Modun (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Nivkh)I stated what I thought was the issue, and it is:
It appears that that is the issue. It further appears that one editor has a source, which is a translation from the Russian original, and the other editor questions the reliability of the translation. Is that a correct statement of the underlying issue? If so, I am asking each editor to identify any source that they are relying on, and for each editor to identify any source that they are challenging. I am asking for each editor to supply details of the sources, so that we can request the reliable source noticeboard to provide an opinion on source reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Third statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)There are multiple statements, by linguists who work on Siberian languages that use these letters, that the two sets are allographs. An example follows, with statements/quotations from two such linguists: L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280). I can dig up other threads that say basically the same thing. There are also recent publications that use the 'ticked' forms of the letters for Nivx, such as mining concessions in Sakhalin. Here is the UNDHR from 2014, using the modern alphabet: UN Declaration of Human Rights (bilingual in Nivx and Russian). I don't know that Modun challenges the translation itself, just the use of these allographs for Nivx. I don't think I have anything to challenge. Modun has presented several Nivx texts that use the rounded allographs. However, no-one disputes that those forms are very commonly used. The crux of the matter is that they're equivalent, even if some publishers prefer one over the other. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC) P.S. I just contacted a Russian scholar of Nivx, and they confirmed that these letters "are just allographs." They haven't written about this and doesn't know of anyone who has, but that's now at least 3 linguists who say they're allographs, against zero contrary evidence provided by Modun. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC) P.P.S. I just heard back from a Finnish linguist who said that "Nivkh is indeed no different from other Northern Eurasian minority languages" in that Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "allographs" of Қ Ң Ҳ etc. They said that the Unicode characters Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "unnecessary" and that Қ Ң Ҳ etc. should be used instead, or at a minimum that search engines should treat them as the same. He copied an email from a colleague of his:
They attached a photo of the Нивх диф ("Nivx Language") newspaper, which uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. Rather than me uploading to Commons, you can check out the newspaper here. As you can see, they continue to use the Қ Ң Ҳ forms, at least as of 2023. I think that settles it, if the Nivx newspaper uses those allographs. (It also confirms the use of a breve rather than a caron over the ar, a variant that can be seen in the UNDHR.) — kwami (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Third statement by Modun (Nivkh)Please understand, I try to comment on the content and point out the shortcomings of the sources provided by user Kwamikagami. This is not against the rules we agreed to. While I have presented as an example several sources from various educational materials to sociolinguistic data (russian-nivkh nivkh-russian dictionary, nivkh farytail "Faithful Urgun", Stories from the Bible in Nivkh and Russian languages 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6 etc) using consistently one variant of the alphabet without indicating any "allographs", another opponent asks why only one source is presented. Kwamikagami cited a source L2/23-015 where, according to his interpretation, in languages where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. Kwamikagami cited a source where, according to his interpretation, in languages where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. However, Kwamikagami is a little disingenuous, in that the letter "Ӈ" does not exist in Kildin Sámi language, moreover, in this language the above-mentioned letters are deliberately distinguished as different, i.e. not being allographs of each other. And yes, this source does not address the question of whether these letters are allographs in the Nivkh language. Moreover, the source dates back to December 2022, and the declaration of human rights in the Nivkh language to which it refers dates back to 2014 (the earliest version is from 2012), i.e. retroactively declares that the letters used are "allographs". As for the quality of the translation of the declarations, my example shows how other translations either use an unknown alphabet (Altai translation), or a translation with a broken encoding, and then how correct is the Nivkh translation of the declaration of human rights in the alphabet? And how correct is it to refer to it then? Kwamikagami does not answer the question of why speakers had to move away from one version of the alphabet. That's a different question.--Modun (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC) P.s. Excuse me, what?! Is there any link to these linguists? Or is this another WP:TRUTH? Without a source, this is just an empty statement, and without any resources and references, it is impossible to continue working in Wikipedia!--Modun (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC) P.s.s. My question is, why are native speakers taught to write in one version of the alphabet, but in the end, for some reason, in practice they use another version of the alphabet "with allographs"? Why can't you just attach another confirming source, where it is clearly stated that in a specific language (in this case, Nivkh), both letter versions are "allographs"? Why are you leading another discussion outside the moderated discussion, which you can't even cite as a source? Sorry, neither the moderator of the discussion nor I simply know the subject of your discussion. And besides, why are you referring to only one linguist's opinion?--Modun (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Nivkh)Since both editors have made relatively long statements, I will have to ask a question. Is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [5] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages? So my question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research? One of the editors refers to conversations with linguists. Those conversations have no reliability for Wikipedia because they are not verifiable unless the linguists can identify publications, either by themselves or by other scholars, that state what they have said. One of the editors has made a long statement that asks various questions. Are they offering a source? Are they contesting the reliability of the document mentioned above? Are there any other source questions, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)The single Nivx newspaper uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. That establishes that they're used for Nivx. Modun claims that they create different alphabets, but has not presented a single source to support that claim. We have a linguist working on Siberian languages, Tapani Salminen, stating that "the WITH HOOK characters represent allographs created by the «Просвещение» (“Enlightenment”, later «Дрофа») publishing house, [...] and search engines in particular should start treating them correctly as variants of the same characters." This is for the letters themselves, for all languages. A second, Rustam Yusupov, says, "Practically, people in Russia don't make a difference between hooks and descenders." Again, in Russia, not with any particular language. (The third, Arzhana Surun, applies this specifically to Tofalar.) I checked with other specialists to be sure, but above we have 2 linguists saying they're allographs, and the one-and-only Nivx newspaper using the forms that Modun says aren't used. That debunks their claims, and is not contradicted by anything they present. — kwami (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by Modun (Nivkh)In my opinion, Kwamikagami has provided insufficient evidence to conclude that the letters in question are simply allographs of each other. For example, in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs. In general, in the formulation in which Kwamikagami wrote it is OR. I would simply change it a little. I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets. As for Rustam Yusupov's comment, I dare to assume that he meant that native speakers simply do not see the difference in practice which version of the letter to use for reading and writing. Replacing these letters with other versions, say, with Latin versions, I do not think that in practice they would see much of a difference either. We still have not figured out why native speakers learned on one version of the alphabet, but in practice have to use another? In general, I will not repeat myself, initially I would simply change the wording. P.S. At least write my nickname correctly!--Modun (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Nivkh)Neither editor has exactly answered my questions. So I will restate them, almost exactly as I did. First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [6] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one more question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages. So my second question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research? User:Kwamikagami writes: Does User:Modun have any sources that they want to use? Are there any other source questions? Does either editor want to make any other changes to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Fifth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)For the first question, durably archived statements by experts in the field count as RS. As for the second, it isn't about other Siberian languages but about Siberian languages in general. A few are mentioned specifically, but the allography is not language-dependent. 'We' is us here. Modun writes, 'in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs.' That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question. Modun asks, 'I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets.' Simple: they have provided zero evidence that Nivx currently has two alphabets. That would be not just OR, but contrary to sources. — kwami (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Fifth statement by Modun (Nivkh)As for the first source, in my opinion it is not precise enough to draw any conclusions. For example, in it Mr Yusupov, to whom Kwamikagami refers, emphasizes (I quote verbatim) "Technically, the use of ң is wrong.", which Tapani Salminen ignores. In my opinion, if we accept this link as a source, then we should use an additional clarifying source that in a specific spelling of a language such a replacement is acceptable, as you found out in the example of the Kildin Sámi language. Otherwise it will be OR. There are no other sources except those presented. There are no more questions except for the above, and there are more questions except for correcting the wording in the paragraph. The wording is something like: "In addition to the alphabet used in the textbooks, native speakers use an alternative alphabet with the following letters ..." Or something like that. P.S. "That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question." Well, that is, in other words, they are not considered as allographs.--Modun (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Nivkh)Neither editor has yet exactly answered my first question. So I will restate it, almost exactly as I did. First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [7] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? The question appears to be whether this source is reliable in saying that the letters are allographs. Maybe I don't understand the terminology, and I know that I don't know the Cyrillic alphabet(s), but I have some questions that might or might not be applicable. So my second question is for each of the editors to explain to me exactly what they mean by allographs. As a minor point, Kwamikagami writes: . If there is an alternative alphabet, with the same number of letters as the primary alphabet, and most of the letters are the same in the two alphabets, but four of them are different, aren't the letters in the two alternative alphabets allographs? Are the letters with the hooks and the letters with the descenders, if those are how the letters differ, used in the same words, or in different words? Do the different letters represent different phonemes? Can both of two variant letters be used in the same word or sentence with a different meaning (in which case they are not alternative letters but more letters)? Are there any rules for when one variant letter is used or when the other one is used? Maybe these are ignorant questions, but the "alternative alphabet" argument sounds to me as though the letters in the different versions of the alphabet are allographs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Sixth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)The real issue for me is the lack of any source for Modun's claim that these are two different alphabets. The expert's words are not based on a non-expert's recall. These are not reports of oral conversation, they are the actual words of the experts writing in, in their responses to other experts and copied and pasted from their emails. There's no more change involved than there would be with an author communicating with any other editor or publisher, where it's normal practice to write in and have them copy from your emails. Yes, that would make them allographs. No, they are not used differently, nor in different words. The orthography is exactly the same, regardless of which forms are used, and can be handled by changing the font, as one linguist commented. The situation is analogous to using script (primer-style) 'a' and 'g' in English: you wouldn't claim that created an 'alternative English alphabet', and you wouldn't use the dedicated IPA letters for them, you'd just choose a font that styled ASCII 'a' and 'g' that way. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statement by Modun (Nivkh)In my understanding, an allograph is a sign/letter that is a variation of the same letter, slightly different in its appearance/design from each other. The problem is that most Cyrillic letters were accepted independently of each other in different languages, essentially denoting the same sounds. Nowhere and never was it stipulated that these Cyrillic letters are allographs of each other, but still they were all accepted as separate letters for different languages, and not variations of each other. This is not just "a different font". These letters are used in one font by the way and for some reason they do not change in any way. I would understand if one font had one letter and another variation of the letter was in another font. Sometimes, letters were specially accepted in different appearances to further emphasize the separateness of languages from each other (the Yakut and Dolgan languages can be an example). The problem is that, apart from the source provided by user Kwamikagami, nowhere else is it stated that these letters are allographs of each other. And for some reason he can't provide another source where the same was stated. Well, regarding your second question to me, this is just a suggested formulation that can be adjusted and which I explained a little higher. These are not allographs, but different letters, therefore different alphabets. There were cases when for some languages another version of the alphabet was adopted for the same composition of sounds, but with a different composition of letters replacing the old letters with others. Well, for some reason, both my sources and Kwamikagami's sources do not mix both variants of the letter set. On the contrary, they are systematically used separately, as two different alphabets! Yes, they denote the same letters, but in Cyrillic there are other letters that denote the same sounds, but for some reason, according to Kwamikagami, they are not considered allographs, but for some reason these ones are considered.That's the thing, we don't have any sources that explain why such a replacement happened. Honestly, I don't know why it happened. Let me repeat that although these Cyrillic letters were accepted for the same sounds, they were accepted as separate letters, not allographs. In my opinion, the source is not reliable enough, because it declares the interchangeability of letters in all languages where they are used without considering each individual language and the possibility of replacement in specific languages. For example, in the Kildin Sami language, the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered as allographs--Modun (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Nivkh)I think that I have to restate the original question, and maybe another question with an additional question. First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [8] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? The question appears to be whether this source is reliable in saying that the letters are allographs. I will also restate a minor point. Statements by experts only are considered reliable sources if they are recorded in a reliable and verifiable record. I may have misunderstood, but I thought that one editor had referred to email reports that they had received from an expert. Those are not reliable sources unless the statement by the expert was published in a reliable medium. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I have not misunderstood the policies on reliable sources and verifiability. If the editors do not give me concise clear answers to the first question, I will post a question at the reliable source noticeboard, but it should not be so difficult for the editors to answer my questions concisely. I have an opinion about the allographs and the alternative alphabets, but that would be original research. So we can only say that they are allographs if a reliable source says that they are allographs, and we can only say that they are alternative alphabets if a reliable source says that they are alternative alphabets. If there are alternative alphabets, do they mostly have the same letters, or are there two completely different ways of writing the Nivkh language? If there are two alphabets that have mostly the same letters, how do the different letters differ from being allographs? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Seventh statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)No, the problem is not the reliability of the source. The source is published and durably archived by Unicode. It is compiled from expert statements supplied to Unicode, in response to a request by Unicode for expert opinion about whether these letters are allographs. This is because allography is relevant to encoding: Unicode does not normally assign code points to allographs, and because of these expert responses, Unicode decided to not continue assigning code points to this duplicate set of letters. Yes, the alternative ways of writing are identical apart from this variation, and whether the rsh (a letter used by no other language) is an er with a breve or with a caron. It's the same orthography: same rules, same letters apart from these: you can change one to the other with find-replace. There is no difference from these being allographs. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Seventh statement by Modun (Nivkh)Can any correspondence be considered a reliable source? If so, in what form? For example, messages in email, messenger or any social network? Would the status or reputation of the people being rewritten in messages make any difference in the reliability of the source? And if it didn't exist? In this case, someone's work correspondence.--Modun (talk) 14:31, 01 October 2024 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Nivkh)The Reliable Source Noticeboard has given what I consider an inconclusive answer about the reliability of the source of the Unicode discussion. The respondent said that the document didn't refer to the Nivkh language, which I had also noted. It refers to Siberian languages in general, but Nivkh is not related to any other languages. I see a few possible ways forward. First, are the other letters, except the four in question, the same in both versions of the Nivkh alphabet? If so, is it accurate to refer to alternative alphabets, or is it more accurate to refer to an alphabet with alternative letters? If one of you has a strict definition of allographs that does not include these letters, is there some other terminology that can be used instead? Second, since Unicode may have made a mistake with those letters, are there alternate sources, in Russian, that either state that the four letters in question are interchangeable, or that they are not interchangeable? Third, can a question be asked either at Talk:Nivkh languages or WikiProject Languages or WikiProject Russia for a third party opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Eighth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
Eighth statement by Modun (Nivkh)In any case, the rest of the letters are the same in both versions of the alphabet. We can say that additional versions of letters are alternative versions of each other, but not strictly allographs. For example, in Cyrillic there are other letters that are practically used for the same sounds, and I do not understand why Kwamikagami then insists that the letters in question are allographs, and other letters in Cyrillic for some reason are not allographs? What Kwamikagami says about allographs in the Latin alphabet is not entirely applicable to the Cyrillic alphabet, because in the Latin alphabet these allographs DEVELOPED from versions of letters of existing letters, and in Cyrillic they were strictly originally designed for specific languages. Unfortunately, I did not find a source in Russian explaining why this interchange of letters was actually allowed and to what extent it was acceptable? In principle, for native speakers, both versions of the letters are mutually understandable (as would be the case if there was a replacement for other versions of the letters). I think if they had asked, it seems to me the result would have been the same.--Modun (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Nivkh)Maybe some progress has been made, if there is agreement that there is one Cyrillic Nivkh alphabet with alternative letters. If there is disagreement over the use of the term allographs, then maybe that is a terminological disagreement. If so, can the editors work together to develop a compromise statement? Are you willing to work together to try to develop a compromise statement that states what the alphabet is and that there are alternative letters for certain phonemes? That is a yes or no question, although a draft compromise would be welcome. Also, should I request a third opinion from WikiProject Languages? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Ninth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)Not as you worded it, because according to the only references we have, your summary is incorrect. These are not alternative letters for certain phonemes. There are alternative Unicode characters, because Unicode has spuriously encoded graphic variants as if they were separate letters, but that's a Unicode thing and only a side note to the nature of the alphabet. I'm happy to work on compromise wording, as long as that reflects our sources as required by WP:RS and other WP safeguards for NPOV editing. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Ninth statement by Modun (Nivkh)Yes, I agree to continue working on a compromise option. We can try, as you said, to ask for someone's third opinion. It wouldn't hurt.--Modun (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Tenth statement by moderator (Nivkh)Kwamikagami has requested a third opinion from WikiProject Languages. While they are waiting for a third opinion, I will encourage the editors to propose and discuss compromise wordings. What Unicode script is used to represent the Cyrillic Nivkh alphabet? This question may or may not be important, but is there an opinion being expressed that the Unicode consortium may have made a mistake in assigning distinct characters for different forms of the letters in question in the Nivkh alphabet? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Tenth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)The script is just 'Cyrl'. Yes, there has been a conclusion that encoding these characters was a mistake. However, AFAIK there hasn't been any talk about formally deprecating them. Meanwhile, writers need to be aware of the fact that written Nivkh will differ on which encoding choices are made, and that search engines, alphabetization and the like will need to treat them as being the same letters [that is, as allographs] or else there will be problems with data processing. Unless Unicode formally deprecates the rounded characters, and Nivkh/Siberian fonts accommodate by rendering the ticked letters with the desired rounded forms, there will be continual problems with typesetting and data storage. That's one reason it should be made clear in our article that these are allographs. Here is my proposed wording of the article. There are several things that Modun does not contest, so I suggest we implement those while the discussion on the rest continues. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Tenth statement by Modun (Nivkh)Honestly, I would not like to comment on the activities of any organization. I think it is not within the competence of any third-party organization to tell any people in what form the alphabet of their language "should be" for purely their own bureaucratic or technical reasons. Actually, we are not satisfying the considerations of any organization here, but working with actual sources of one kind or another. It seems that I have already roughly imagined in what possible formulation the text could be presented, I would like to see in what formulation Kwamikagami would like to present this.--Modun (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
|
Jessica Nabongo
Closed as problematic in various ways. The filing editor has been indefinitely partially blocked from the article in question. While they are not blocked from the article talk page and are permitted to discuss the article, filing a case here is not a substitute for an unblock request, and the partial block is understood as the uninvolved opinion of the blocking administrator that their editing of the article has been disruptive. The discussion on the article talk page has been inadequate. The filing editor has not notified the other two editors. If there had been adequate prior discussion by a good-standing editor, I would remind them to notify the other editors. The filing editor should either request unblock, on their user talk page or at WP:AN, or simply avoid the article from which they have been blocked. I will note that a similar request was filed in August, and was closed as abandoned. Other editors may continue editing of the article and the article talk page, normally, without regard to the blocked editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
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 Edits to this page are being reverted and covered with incorrect information that can be proved with a simple Google search. The sources I provided are being called self-sourced, including the websites of TEDx, The Detroit News, iucncongress2020.org, https://www.whitehouse.gov. Bibliography is also removed, even the the subject is a published author, and the publisher is a mainstream publisher (National Geographic). There are articles about it all over the internet, including websites like the Washington Post, Good Morning America, BBC, Conde Nast traveler and more. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jessica_Nabongo#Note to admins wandering through
Revert latest edits Summary of dispute by ValereeePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ToBeFreePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jessica Nabongo discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Barb horse
Closed as declined by the other editor. DRN is voluntary. The other editor erased the notice of the DRN filing, which is a recognized way of declining to participate in moderated discussion. It is not the most polite way of declining to participate, but notifying an editor three times after they have erased the notice twice is tendentious. Even if the other editor had accepted, this case would be closed because other forms of dispute resolution including a thread at WP:AN were open at the time, so that filing here looks like forum shopping. This close is a caution to both editors, but primarily to the filing editor. Since these are two editors who are not discussing content, the next step may be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
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 reworked the page of the Barb horse, adding more information. However, another user, User:M.Bitton, seems to have issues with the content I added, as well as some elements that existed before my additions, which became problematic after my edits. This is evident from his edit reasoning, where he claims it falls under MOS:FORLANG. If you read it, you’ll see that before he started reverting various parts of the article, the Tamazight/Berber language was allowed to be there—it is present in almost every translation of the page that includes second languages, and has been in the English wiki since 2016. He has also removed anything related to the original breeders, as seen in this edit [9]. He continued to revert several times, as can be seen in [10]. these issues primarily relate to earlier revisions, not my own. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I attempted to resolve on the talk page, but out of concern for starting an edit war, and due to his lack of proper engagement with me in the discussion, as shown in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? An outsider view of the issue will greatly help decide on the subject, as we both have different opinions on how the article should be. Summary of dispute by M.BittonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Barb horse discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|