Latest revision as of 21:53, 21 January 2025

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254

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

Current disputes

Imran Khan

This dispute has been resolved by opinions at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Abo Yemen (talk · contribs)
• Javext (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the Portuguese Navy) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per WP:RSP). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.

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

Talk:Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)#Infobox "Result"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous WP:NPOV

Summary of dispute by Javext

Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:

-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"

-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"

-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the 11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:

-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."

-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."

So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

Thank you for whoever reads this. Javext (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.

First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research.

The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory

Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here.Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.
Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy

Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.

The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.

Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this Abo Yemen✉ 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."

.

Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to WP:RS, the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.

-

"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."

.

You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.

-

"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."

.

What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..

-

"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;

'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.'

Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."

.

I already responded to this above

-

"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."

.

Hello?? "defended itself from the invaders" - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "

-

"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."

.

I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."

-

"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."

.

I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet[REDACTED] standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. "None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..." Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out.. Javext (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of Misplaced Pages:DRN Rule D. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a contentious topic; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are WP:AWARE of this.

I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind WP:OR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I have read and am willing to follow WP:DRND. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
(Do we state what changes we want now?) Abo Yemen✉ 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Yes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright,
Changes that I want to be made:

• I want the old article section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
• The infobox should Include the Mahra Sultanate with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text
• As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about Battle of al-Shihr (1531) and Battle of al-Shihr (1548)).

Abo Yemen✉ 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. Javext (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen and Javext: Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because he doesn't like it. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints should be included Abo Yemen✉ 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read WP:RS.

If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. Javext (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like this one from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources from al-Ayyam (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the Sanaa university press (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?

Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? Javext (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8Ahttps://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at WP:RSN Javext (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. Javext (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. : However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).

First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at WP:RSN and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen and Javext: Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit Abo Yemen✉ 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? Abo Yemen✉ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins Abo Yemen✉ 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

Second statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

The thread at RSN has been archived, and it appears to me that the consensus is that the listed sources are not reliable in this context. Taking this into consideration, what are the issues that remain? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I've restored it for a bit wait 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No issues remain. Without those listed sources there's nothing he can change. The article is good as it is now. Javext (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

Movement for Democracy (Greece)

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

Location of dispute

• Movement for Democracy (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hellenic Rebel (talk · contribs)
• Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group.

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

• Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#5/300 *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Disruptive editing *Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Greece#Movement for Democracy (Greece) *Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated pov pushing *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Discussion *Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics#Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 - Dispute over whether the party has MPs or not

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament.

Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel

Hello dear users, those are my points:

• Lack of Consensus:

Contrary to claims that the community rejected my point, only two users disagreed with me, while one agreed that the party has 5/300 MPs. The original article mentioned this, and while the page was locked for consensus, no actual consensus was achieved. It should have reverted to its original version.

• Evidence from Sources:

Reliable sources and reputable newspapers (e.g., To Vima, Nea), confirm that the Democracy Movement has five MPs affiliated with it. Also, we have sources that state the membership of this MPs, for example:

• Documento: the five MPs who have left SYRIZA and joined the Democracy Movement..
• Politic: The five MPs belonging to the Democracy Movement

Similar language is used across multiple reliable sources. These sources clearly describe the MPs as belonging to the Democracy Movement.

• Policy Misinterpretation:

Some argued that specific phrasing in the sources (e.g., “stand for”) was absent, invalidating their use. However, I have identified sources stating that the MPs belong to or joined the party. Later the users tried to interpretate the policies strictly, but this is rigid and inconsistent with similar cases on Misplaced Pages (e.g., SSW, UDI, DemoS). The accepted practice allows acknowledging parties represented by MPs without a parliamentary group.

Additionally, Rambling Rambler used tactics like WP policies overloads (which in reality was not even responding to my contributions as I demonstrate to users through my responses) and ad-hominem attacks, focusing on my block history instead of addressing my arguments, which I find irrelevant and unconstructive.

• Parliamentary Website Context:

The Hellenic Parliament website lists only parliamentary groups, not individual parties represented in parliament. This does not mean a party lacks representation. The Democracy Movement’s five MPs are validly affiliated with the party, even without forming a parliamentary group. Additionally, an MP with no Parl. Group, is called "independent" in the Hellenic Parliament, that's why you see sometimes the term "independent" as a reference to those 5 MPs.

• Request for Fair Evaluation:

I urge users and admins to thoroughly review the discussion and evidence. The version I support is based on clear, reliable sources. If the community, after proper review, agrees with the opposing view, I will accept the decision. However, there is currently no consensus to override the original version.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler

Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity.

However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party.

The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future.

While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Misplaced Pages as well.

Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party.

Summary of dispute by 77.49.204.122

I am user 77.49.204.122 who submitted the request but unfortunately through no fault of my own, my ip has been changed. I don't know if I can participate, - if I can't, please take the trouble and delete my edit. Since I speak Greek I wanted to contribute with a parliamentary question by MP Giota Poulou

MP Yiota Poulou, who belongs to the Movement for Democracy, when she submitted a question to the Parliament, described herself and the other 5 MPs as Independents belonging to the party. According to the Greek parliamentary concept, as expressed by the Greek Parliament on its website, MPs are described as independent - that is, they do not represent their party in Parliament, but only themselves. On the initiative of the independent MP of Viotia Giota Poulou, which was co-signed by the five Independent MPs of the party "DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT", a Question was submitted to the Parliament on the problem of the road blockade of Delphi due to rockfalls on the National Road of Livadia-Amfissa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Movement for Democracy (Greece) discussion

Hi there, I'm Steve, and I'm a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. My approach is significantly different to others that contribute here, and is less structured, but as always, a reminder to remain focused on the content issues at hand. This one is relatively clear cut, but I'll explain in a little more detail, but there are a few content related policies that apply here, broadly the ones that cover articles on living people and reliable sourcing. Both of these are key to any discussion regarding a dispute on content, and even a limited consensus on a talk page, or even here, cannot override our requirement to abide by these article policies. Having read several of the linked discussions, editors have correctly noted the need to observe what reliable sources say regarding the MPs and their party affiliation/membership. While some of the sources that were presented mention affiliation with the party, reviewing the sources provided, the point that the IP editor here mentioned here is accurate: "We care what the sources say. And the sources describe them as Independent MPs who belong to the party. Ιn terms of their parliamentary presence, they are listed as independent. And (sic) infobox is asking for the listing of parliamentary presence."

In this situation, as editors we also weigh the sources provide to ensure we balance coverage in the article, and ensure we don't give specific sources undue weight. While one source was provided that mentions that they belong to the party, the majority of sources provided do not make this distinction. I don't see anything here as a DR volunteer that would give precedence to the one viable source provided against all others, and while it's not my role to make "decisions", the consensus here and in other discussions is quite clear against inclusion in the infobox based on the sourcing provided. As always, consensus can change, but I would advise additional discussions would likely be unproductive without additional, substantial sourcing in favour of changing the status quo. Steven Crossin 04:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin Good evening. I have a small observation to make. There is no disagreement about whether these MPs are members of the Democracy Movement. They are, and this is obvious, the only we wanted was one-two sources to to verify it, and we found them. The disagreement stems from the fact that, based on the rules of the Greek Parliament, the formation of a parliamentary group is not carried out with less than 10 MPs. Thus, these 5 MPs are called parliamentary independents. That's why the sources call the MPs independents. The users believe that the fact that the parliament recognizes them as independent automatically makes them non-representative of the Democracy Movement party. Me on the other hand, believe that the status in parliament is something different from whether and how many MPs each party has in it, citing the above and other similar cases abroad. This is the disagreement, and that is where the community should focus. No more is needed, the rest are just big debates and meaningless fights that confuse the community. So based on this, isn't the logical thing to do to add the 5 MPs bar? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this clarification. The discussion that has been had around whether to add them in the infobox as MPs part of a recognised parliamentary group are based on coverage in reliable sources, and the rules of the parliament in question. These are documented in the parliamentary article, too - Hellenic_Parliament#Parliamentary_groups - "A parliamentary group in the Hellenic Parliament should consist of at least ten MPs who are members of the same party. Five MPs should also suffice provided the party they belong to had ballots in at least two thirds (2/3) of the constituencies and got at least three percent (3%) of the total number of valid ballots in the country.. So as editors (and DR volunteers) we evaluate the article and whether they meet that threshold. I can see two parties are mentioned on the Hellenic Parliament page as a parliamentary group with under 10 members, Course of Freedom (with 6) and Spartans (Greek political party) with 5, and according to the results of the June 2023 Greek parliamentary election, both received at least 3% of the national vote, which is why they meet the criteria set by parliament of a "parliamentary group". Even with 5 MPs affiliated with this party, it is clear they are a new party per the article, and did not stand in the June 2023 elections (as they did not exist) and thus, don't meet the defined criteria of the parliamentary body to be described as a parliamentary group, and describing it as such on their own article would ignore the defined rules of the parliament. I'm afraid this is pretty clear cut - unless the governing body changes their defined parliamentary rules for recognition as a parliamentary body, noting them as such on their Misplaced Pages page (or on the parliament page) is not in line with policy. Steven Crossin 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin Yes, here is my opinion: are based a) on coverage in reliable sources, and b) the rules of the parliament in question. I agree with a, and in our case there is coverage in reliable sources. I remind, that the term "independent" in the sources, does not contradict the status of party membership: this is evident both from the Parliament's regulations and from the fact that a source refers to "independent members of the Democracy Movement". So, we have reliable sources that consider 5 MPs of parliament to be members of the party, and no source that disputes this. Regarding b, we disagree here. The Parliament's regulations on parliamentary groups are something different with the number of members of each party. Please, just look at the examples of other countries that I cite, and they do not have P.G. but despite this, no one has questioned the appearance of their members in bars. To give an example: "New Democracy, with 156 MPs, could have an internal parliamentary disaggrement, and so the P.G. could decide to create two different parliamentary groups, the «P.G. New Democracy - Liberals», and the «P.G. New Democracy - Moderate Conservatives», without dissolving the New Democracy party itself and without any MPs leaving the party". In this hypothetical scenario, New Democracy would clearly still have 156 MPs, even though it would not have any P.G. that identifies with the party. One thing is the P.G., another is the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hellenic Rebel, thanks for your reply. There's a few things to consider, and a common frequently quoted guideline is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's more specific to why certain articles can't exist when others do, but it's still a good point here. The presence of content in an infobox in one article doesn't always mean it should be in another article - we weigh the policies and guidelines applicable, plus information we can find in reliable sources. In your examples provided, we can't consider what's the standards applicable in other countries, as the reliable sources here that define inclusion are specific to the Greek Parliament (their regulations on recognised political groups). As discussed above, they have defined criteria for recognising a political group, which this article does not meet. You also mentioned a hypotheitcal scenario where an existing PG splits into two - as per the article and provided requirements from the parliament, if one of the factions had less than 10 members, and didn't have a specific vote share in the most recent election, it too wouldn't be recognised. The Hellenic Parliament article infobox only lists the count of members of recognised political groups, with the remainder grouped under "independents". Adding this proposed bar to the Democracy Movement party would not be in line with policy. Steven Crossin 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin Here lies my main disagreement: why should the bar of political parties, specifically and especially in the case of Hellas, refer only to the parliamentary groups of these parties? The articles are clear. They refer to the Movement for Democracy party, the KKE party, the New Democracy party, etc. Not to their parliamentary groups. For example, in the case of France there are different articles for parliamentary groups and different articles for parties (and this is the most correct in my opinion). When you have an article that refers to a party, then the bar should refer to the elected members of parliament who are members that party or represent it. Clearly, the parliamentary group that the party has - if it has one - is mentioned within the article, but the bar simply refers to the members of parliament of the party. There are reputable sources for Greek data that refer to the 5 MPs as members of the Democracy Movement. At the same time, there is no source that disputes this. Is that against the WP policy?

Regarding the citation of the WP policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yes, I saw it, but I think that in our case, the citation of examples that I made above is NOT something like "since there is an identical article, let's do the same here". In the discussion of the article, I have cited more examples, and in general if we start searching in all the parties of all the countries, the pattern is the same. The examples that I give are simply indicative, and in this case if we don't add the bar, we are creating a "hellenic" exception to the general pattern that is followed everywhere, throughout Misplaced Pages. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin just wanted to thank you for taking the time to look into this. I am of course glad that you have concurred that this is a simple matter of BLP and reliable sources and that at present the evidence doesn't support the desired changes by Hellenic Rebel. I hope as they stated in their opening summary that they will accept the decision and this can finally be laid to rest until such a time sources demonstrate otherwise. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Urartu

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Urartu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
• Skeptical1800 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple issues discussed in Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes.

I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.

Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.

User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.

User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.

User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Resolve issues with respect to WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:OR, and removal of content

Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800

Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.

User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.

Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:

"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"

User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.

Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.

The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:

"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"

So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).

User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.

Here is the quote in question:

"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"

User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.

"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."

User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu

User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:

Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. "The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."

and:

Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 "Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."

It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?

Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: "Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."

It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.

To the previous point, there's also the following: "Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."

Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.

There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Misplaced Pages is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Misplaced Pages appropriate?

These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Urartu discussion

Skeptical1800, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.

I had reverted your recent changes based on WP:BRD and had removed content I added that you object to based on WP:ONUS, so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Undid recent edits, as requested.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Skeptical1800, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Urartu)

I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a contentious topic. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Urartu)

I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:

• Removal of content from the lead. Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".
• Removal of content from Urartu#Appearance_of_Armenia: The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".
• Removal of this content, or where it should be put: These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.
• Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to this edit. Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: Talk:Proto-Armenian_language#Recent_edits and Talk:Origin_of_the_Armenians#Recent_edits. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation.
• I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. Bogazicili (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here.

Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:

• Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should not include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages unless the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the Language section. It should not be in the lead.
• Article should not include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of WP:UNDUE as it contradicts numerous WP:RS included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Urartu)

Be civil and concise. A few of the statements here have not be civil. I will advise the editors again to comment on content, not contributors. If you want to make allegations of stalking or of misrepresenting sources, read the boomerang essay first, and then report the conduct at WP:ANI, but we will not discuss content here while conduct is being discussed anywhere. Please use some other term than saying that an editor is misrepresenting sources, which may imply intentional misrepresentation. If you think that another editor is misinterpreting sources, you may so that.

Do any of the content issues have to do with questions about the reliability of sources? I see statements that content was removed. If an editor removed content, or wants content removed, please state whether the removal is because of source reliability issues, or due weight, or other reasons.

Please reread DRN Rule D and again say whether you agree that we will only discuss content. Please also state whether there are any questions about source reliability, and what are any other reasons for removal of content.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Urartu)

Wesean Student Federation

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wesean Student Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EmeraldRange (talk · contribs)
• Flyingphoenixchips (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea".

Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC.

Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus)

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

Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Third Opinion requested, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#POV Based Content: Possible Original Research, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Removal of the etymology section, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Request for Review: Insurgency-Related Content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes

Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips

My argument was basically that this constitutes WP:COATRACK as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope. Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice (Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources), and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Misplaced Pages's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

Wesean Student Federation discussion

Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! Steven Crossin 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Clovermoss (talk · contribs)
• Jeffro77 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, but it was objected to on January 10. My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback.

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

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Lead sentence

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background.

Summary of dispute by Jeffro77

In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at religious group, that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--Jeffro77 Talk 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses discussion

Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! Steven Crossin 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? Steven Crossin 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds alright to me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks. I might not always be able to reply in a timely fashion during the work week.—Jeffro77 Talk 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards