Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

green

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	33 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Albertatiran (t)	1 days,
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 12 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 12 hours
Yasuke	New	Theozilla (t)	4 hours	None	n/a	Theozilla (t)	4 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Malayalam#Debates on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Cpt.a.haddock on 11:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Malayalam#Debates on the origins of Malayalam - June 2017 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs)
• Hyper9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The discussion is about whether Malayalam is an off-shoot of Tamil or if both are descendants of an earlier language (Proto-Tamil-Dravidian). This is also an ongoing debate among scholars. The dispute itself boils down to this:

Editor 1: Here's a 1972 paper that proposes a Proto-Tamil-Dravidian origin for both languages. Here's a 1997 book on Malayalam that states that the 1972 argument is convincing. Since both these reliable sources are by linguists specialising in Malayalam, this is the current and accepted scholarly position on this debate and the Malayalam article should adopt this position. Scholarly positions adopted by Malayalam linguists take precedence over the positions of everybody else until another Malayalam linguist repudiates said position.

Editor 2: Here's the same 1997 book by Malayalam linguists that states that the Tamil-origin of Malayalam is the most widely held view. Yes, it says that the 1972 argument is convincing. Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica article also confirming a Tamil-origin while stating that the other theory is also a possibility. Here's a 1998 book by a linguist supporting the Tamil-origin theory. Here's a 2003 book by a Dravidian (a superset of South Indian languages which includes Malayalam) linguist who supports the Tamil-origin theory. Here's a 2014 historian saying the same thing. Therefore, it is true that the 1972 Proto-Tamil-Dravidian theory is not widely accepted even after 45 years. We should therefore note that the Tamil-origin view is the one that's generally accepted and note that the competing Proto-Tamil-Dravidian theory is preferred by some scholars.

Editor 1: No. Malayalam linguists trump Dravidian linguists, general linguists, and historians no matter how reputable or recent. The position of Malayalam linguists is "current scholarly understanding" until you can cite another Malayalam linguist who says otherwise. There's nothing to discuss.

Editor 2: That's nonsense. Let's go for dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None. We've asked lurking editors to step in; none have.

How do you think we can help?

• Interpret WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NPOV to provide direction on which position the article should adopt.

• Compare revisions preferred by either editor in the context of WP:NPOV.

Summary of dispute by Hyper9

I assume that this is place where I put forward my arguments. Do let me know if this is not so.

• 1. The topic of the period of origin of this South Indian Dravidian language, Malayalam, has been at the centre of disputes over the course of the 20th century. That is acknowledged, recognised by me and well known.
• 2. A point of difference/dispute arises between 2 WP editors on the current position of the debate. In order to support my position (of origins before 800 CE), I put forward the primary source which is Govindankutty (1972) and the secondary verification source - Asher and Kumari (1997). Govindankutty is a 'Professor of Linguistics and Indology' at the UoLeiden. Asher is/was the Professor Emeritus of Linguistics (and Vice-Principal) at the UoEdinburgh. Asher is also the author of an authoritative linguistic guide to Malayalam.
• 3. Most importantly, both of them have an entire body of work on the subject in question, ie Malayalam. They arrive at a conclusion that the split of Malayalam is before 300 CE.
• 4. The other editor (Cpt.a.haddock), has used three references Krishnamurti (Professor of Linguistics, UoOsmania), Karashima (Professor Emeritus of History, UoTokyo) and Steever (unknown qualifications and non-academic?? needs confirmation) who generally state that Malayalam originates sometime around 800 CE.
• 5. All of these three sources are established academics in the field of Dravidian studies, no doubt. However, none of these three appear to have a single academic publication specifically on Malayalam in their entire body of work. Hence, I clearly argue, that they do not constitute as experts on Malayalam. Krishnamurti's work largely relates to Telugu, Karashima - Tamil and Steever - Tamil-Kannada as can be seen in their bodies of work.
• 6. Based on this I argue that the current 'scholarly' position on the subject is that of Govindankutty/Asher as they constitute as experts on the subject of Malayalam, of greater authority than any of these other sources.
• 7. I would further like to add that the Government of India has already granted Classical language tag to Malayalam. This tag requires the language to be least 1500 years old, amongst its various criteria . This conclusion directly contradicts the position of all 3 references of Editor 2(Cpt.a.haddock) who state that the language splits around 800 CE. This decision was hotly contested, but ultimately accepted by the Government.
• 8. In sum, it would therefore appear that Asher's acceptance (as an established expert of Malayalam) and the Government of India's acceptance (based on the expert case presented to them) does constitute 'current' consensus that Malayalam's origin is pre-800 CE.

Thanks for your time. (Word count - 407) Hyper9 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I dont know if I'm allowed to add further information to this. Let me know if this is not the allowed.

• 9. I have found one further scholar who has the expertise to address Govindankutty (1972) and who agrees with this position (before 800 CE). I extend the argument that none of the scholars cited by Editor2 (Cpt.a.haddock) have the expertise to address this subject ie Malayalam. This source is an expert of Tamil-Malayalam and Professor of Linguistics at Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu. This is a secondary verification source. Refer pg 10. S.V. Shanmugam (1972) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pp. 5-30 - Hyper9 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC) - EditedHyper9 (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Talk:Malayalam#Debates on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017 discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Both editors are reminded to be civil and to be patient in listening to the opinions of other editors even if they disagree. Also, as an administrator has noted, disruptive editing involving India are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. However, participation in collaborative dispute resolution, such as this noticeboard, is a good way to avoid being sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Are the parties interested in moderated discussion here? Yashovardhan (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• talk - I don't have any problem in taking part in such a discussion. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• While I'm not opposed to a moderated discussion, I don't think it's going to help much. What this dispute needs, IMO, is a third party to provide clarity/guidance vis-à-vis WP:NPOV and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Do both editors agree to the third opinion proposal? If that's the case, this case can be closed and a new request can be made at WP:3O. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Both parties are also OK with a moderated discussion (in my case, ideally with a moderator familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines who can provide some clarity on them). From what I see, 3O is something of a dead end. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. A volunteer will soon take up this dispute. Till then, all parties are requested not to edit the page in question (at least related to this discussion) and not to discuss the matter outside DRN. Note that only content disputes will be discussed here. Thank you, Yashovardhan (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello All, I would just like to inform that I would be AFK during large parts of tomorrow (ie 20th June, 2017) and there might be delayed or intermittent responses from me. Kindly bear with me. Thanks for your patience. Hyper9 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will be the moderator for this discussion. Please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they believe is the issue or what are the issues? I understand that the age of the Mayalayam language, when it became distinct from related languages including Tamil, is one of the issues. Are there any other issues?

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• The issue is over the origin of Malayalam. Hyper9's view is that the less widely-supported theory of a 'Proto-Tamil-Dravidian' origin represents "current scholarly understanding" because authors of a 1997 book on Malayalam have noted in their preface that a 1972 paper propounding it makes a "convincing case". The fact that they also state that "the most widely held view is perhaps the one that takes Malayalam as a 'daughter' of Tamil" is completely ignored. Multiple subsequently published reliable sources which support the Tamil-origin view have also been deemed irrelevant by Hyper9 as the authors do not meet his requirement of having specialised in Malayalam itself. These other authors include Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, an academic specialising in comparative Dravidian linguistics. (Malayalam is a Dravidian language.) Hyper9's stance of a Proto-Tamil-Dravidian origin representing "current scholarly understanding" is both not directly supported by his cited source nor meets WP:NPOV. The other issue is on whether Wikipedia actually has a ranking system for the authoritativeness of a source and if that applies here.

My stance is the one the article currently adopts (and previously adopted albeit loosely), that of the Tamil-origin theory being the most widely held view with some scholars also supporting a Proto-Tamil-Dravidian origin theory. I believe that this is a neutral stance which is directly supported by the cited references.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Editor 2, Hyper9

The subject under dispute covers the topic of the origin of the language, Malayalam. There are 2 positions that can be taken by anyone in this debate. One, that its origin is around 800CE. Or Two, that the origin is before 800 CE.

The first position (ie origin around 800 CE), is a widely held general perception and can be found in several sources. However, what can also be observed is that most of these sources are also non-specialist in Malayalam. This includes ALL sources/references listed by Editor 1(Cpt.a.haddock). They appear to have NO publications specialising in Malayalam. Not only that, there is no clarity in their literature whether they have the ability to direct address the subject or are just utilising existing general views.

Now, upon examination of the expert literature on Malayalam, we find that the experts almost all state that the origin is the second position (ie origin before 800 CE). I have cross-checked this with other authoritative publications (esp Asher and Kumari (1997) which is a secondary verification source). They expound Position 1 (around 800 CE) as a general view - and then proceed to point out that this is not so.

What I find is that the expert Malayalam linguists are fairly unanimous (of pre-800 CE). The Government of India has also taken this position.

But this is not found in linguists of closely related languages - and therefore presented by Editor 2 as the 'widely held' view - which is an unclear construct. As a result, we find that the dispute essentially boils down to this - what consitutes an 'expert' view or 'scholarly/academic' view ? Would it be Malayalam linguists or experts of other languages (who do not exhibit any specialisation in Malayalam but closely related languages)?

I must add that the qualifications of most involved citations are impeccable. Apologies for using 4 paras - but they are quite short.Hyper9 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

The issue is agreed to be when Mayalayam came to be a distinct language, whether around 800 CE or considerably prior to 800 CE. It appears that Mayalayam scholars and, significantly, the government of India (which can be expected to be neutral, with Indo-European languages rather than Dravidian languages being more common in India), hold the view of earlier origin, and non-Mayalayam scholars hold the view of origin around 800 CE. Obviously both views should be presented in the article. Is there an issue about what should be in the body of the article? The body of the article should be comprehensive, and should present both views in full. Is there any issue about the body? What do the editors think should be in the lede? Is there any reason why it should not also state that there is disagreement among reliable sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• Editor 2 - Hyper9 - I think it would be safe to say that there appears to be no dispute that both views should be presented in the body of the article. The dispute looks like it is limited to the Lead. In this case, of how it should be worded. It needs to be decided whether the views of the expert Malayalam linguists should be viewed merely as a counter-view or as the dominant 'scholarly' position or vice-versa.

I would personally prefer to highlight the fact that the scholars being referenced are actually the experts in Malayalam linguistics, unlike the current wording of "some scholars" - which is the current edit of Editor1 in Para2 of the lead (indicating this editor's preferred wording). The lead should faithfully reflect that the counter-position is held by Malayalam's expert linguists - and this emphasis is currently lacking. Otherwise, it appears as another generally held view and does not do justice to the weight of the opinion. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, the government of India is not a reliable source here and the "classical languages" tag is simply part of the language politics which is common in India. The supporting newspaper article provided by Hyper9 neither supports his conclusions nor speaks about Malayalam itself. The use of "generally believed" and "some scholars" in the current lead is based on the single short paragraph by "Malayalam's expert linguists" in the introduction to their book. I have copied said paragraph and pasted it here along with my emphasis. They clearly begin by stating that the matter of Malayalam's origin remains under dispute and then state that the most widely held view is of it being a 'daughter' of Tamil before stating that one scholar has made a convincing case for the other argument as well. The article currently reflects the same position. The lead doesn't explicitly note that there is a dispute, but it is implied in the presentation of both views. The body explicitly notes the dispute before presenting both views with the Tamil-origin theory noted as being the more widely held view, which is precisely what Asher and Kumari—"Malayalam's expert linguists"—state themselves. So the argument that Asher and Kumari somehow have sided with the Proto-Tamil-Dravidian theory is explicitly false.

Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, the linguist who specialises in comparative Dravidian linguistics, doesn't mention the alternate theory at all in his 2003 book and only notes that Malayalam was earlier a west-coast dialect of Tamil. This same book has been reviewed in 2004 by RE Asher—the primary author of the 1997 book mentioned above—who calls it a timely work of great importance that has finally superseded Caldwell's seminal work. Asher does not mention any shortcomings in Krishnamurti's opinions on Malayalam or anything else.

I believe that the current version of the article is just fine and adequately and accurately reflects scholarly opinion on both sides of the debate. To answer the other questions, I have no problems with additionally stating in the lead that the origins of Malayalam are disputed. I also have no issues with expanding on either theory in the body either and have stated so in the article's talk page earlier.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

The current lede states the ca. 800 CE origin as the primary hypothesis and the earlier origin as secondary. Would all editors be agreeable to a version that simply states the two theories as to age and does not prefer one over the other? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What are versions of the lede, other than the current version, that would satisfy each editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

• Editor 2 - Hyper9 -

Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that the previous statement (2nd statement) of Editor1 fully exposes the fact that they are unwilling to consider what is the stated position of the government (which would have been evaluated by the top experts in the country) as well as the evidence from Malayalam-specific linguists. I have been pointing this out as a clear case of bias and does not fulfil WP:NPOV.

Once again, I unequivocally state that there is NO instance of Editor1's main reference source, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, referring to or evaluating Govindankutty (1972). In fact, he does not appear to have a single academic paper specific to Malayalam linguistics, far less in Malayalam 'historical linguistics'. Asher and Kumari (1997: xxiv) evaluate Govindankutty (1972) and state that he has made a "convincing" case for an earlier split (ie before 800 CE). This can also be verified in a response paper, Shanmugam (1976:26) which also directly addresses Govindankutty (1972), agrees with it and extends it - but which Editor1 has clearly avoided to address in all their replies till now.Hyper9 (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Edited.Hyper9 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, I am willing to accept a neutral wording of the Lead paragraph - as I am capable of seeing that the argument has dragged far and long enough. A neutral wording of both hypotheses, giving neither pre-eminence is an acceptable conclusion.Hyper9 (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• The lead actually does not claim that the 800 CE split is the primary hypothesis. It claims that it is the more widely held one which mirrors the neutral language used by Asher & Kumari. I would like to suggest the following for the lead:

The antiquity of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. It is generally believed that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after the 7th century. But a convincing case has also been made for the separation of Malayalam and Tamil from a common ancestor, 'Proto-Tamil-Dravidian', in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.

The above version paraphrases Asher and Kumari—a source that Hyper9 acknowledges as being impeccable—virtually line by line. If he objects to this, I'd like to hear how he would paraphrase the same section line by line.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

One editor is willing to accept a neutral wording of the lede, stating the two hypotheses with no preference. Is the other editor willing to accept this solution? Are there any other proposed resolutions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

• The other proposed solution is in my previous statement which was listed in answer to your question What are versions of the lede, other than the current version, that would satisfy each editor?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor 2 - Hyper9 - There are several areas to improve in the preferred version of Editor1 stated above. The lead should faithfully represent both positions and be supported by the relevant references/citations. Moreover, the above version of Editor1 makes a massive decision by WP editors that a 'convincing' case has been made. I dont think that we have any authority to make such a decision (even though it is a re-phrasing of Asher & Kumari (1997), it appears that 'we' have made the conclusion ourselves). The only indisputable option for such usage would be to directly quote Asher & Kumari (1997).Hyper9 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the origin pre-800CE seems to be the common view amongst Malayalam linguistic experts. So would it not be accurate to include that this is the case, as opposed to the 'general', 'widey held' view held by an assortment of people? Its obvious that the above wording privileges one view over the other. A basic statement of both hypotheses would indeed be preferable to this. Thanks.Hyper9 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

Okay. Let's get down to it. Will each editor please propose what they believe is a neutral version of the lede that summarizes both viewpoints neutrally? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

Editor2 - Hyper9 - This would be a version that I would prefer. Also, please refer to the Notes about Editor1's references.

- START -

The time period of the origin of Malayalam is disputed. One theory views Malayalam as having separated from Middle Tamil around the 8th century CE.12. The second theory views Malayalam as a direct development out of Proto-Dravidian in the pre-historic era, i.e. before the composition of Sangam literature (around 300 CE).

- END -

Notes

• 1 - Krishnamurti (2003), on page 21 gives a language tree where Malayalam splits independently from Proto-'South Dravidian I’ rather than Tamil. On the other hand, pg 22 says that Malayalam splits from Tamil in the 9th century CE. Thus, page 21 and page 22 are in contradiction with each other!
• 2 - Steever (1998) is provided as a reference supporting Editor1’s position on the Talk:Malayalam page. I am unable to locate anything linked to the origins of Malayalam on page 6. In fact, this entire book does not address Malayalam at all! The Steever (1998:6) reference is incorrect as it just briefly mentions the earliest Malayalam inscriptions found.

Kindly confirm whether Editor1 has better references or wants to use Krishnamurti (2003)?Hyper9 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Hyper9 (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• My previous neutral submission minus Asher & Kumari's position on widely held views and convincing cases.

The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One theory holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after c. 7th century CE. A second theory moots the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.

I don't believe that other sources and the accompanying OR baggage are required.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Talk:Rijeka City_Council

– New discussion.

Filed by StjepanHR on 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Rijeka City Council (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StjepanHR (talk · contribs)
• Tuvixer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and another user got into a discussion if there should be labels "government" and "opposition" in the infobox of Rijeka City Council and, if yes, how should it be done. To me, the best examples, at least it seems to me are, to quote: "(Budapest, Moscow, New York, London and Buenos Aires and Los Angeles). All of them list simply "political groups" without distinction to government or opposition (only on "majority" vs. "minority" of seats in case of New York)." The other user insists to put "government" for the parties supporting mayor and "opposition" for those that are against him, but have majority. As the city newspaper refers to the situation as a divided government ("kohabitacija"): [1], I think we should leave out "government" and "opposition" tags. Our discussion can be found on the talk page for more information.

He accused me twice for vandalism and once that my edits are not sane: [2] and accused me for "disruptive editing": [3] Also, he called me "politically motivated" and "frustrated because I was right about 2*1komunikacije and now you are going on a spree of edits on this article" (the second is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:RSN, that hasn't yet brought any solution, so nobody is proven to be right, yet).

In addition, he reverts my removal of outdated (2013-2017) picture that represents the distribution of seats ([4]).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to talk with him and find compromise with the solution of removing all the labels "opposition/government" or adding something like "executive government/council majority" and tried to explain differences in Croatian end English language for the word "government", but th conclusion was to bring the third party (and, as I don't know anybody suitable, I decided to bring it here).

How do you think we can help?

You can tell us which solution to use and decide if we should remove the outdated picture of seat redistribution.

Summary of dispute by Tuvixer

First, I want to say that this has gone beyond a dispute over a polling agency [5] and beyond this dispute in question. User StjepanHR is using ad hominem attacks and I feel threatened by his remarks. He is using personal remarks about me, obviously spent some time to find and old account on a Croatian forum, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, he is presenting as evidence facebook profiles [6] and posts on some forums [7]. All this has nothing to do with Wikipedia or articles in question. Last two days I am getting phone calls form a hidden phone number, late at night. First I thought it was a mistake or a prank but now I know what is going on. This is all part of a personal attack on me. I feel awful and I plead Wikipedia to protect me. I just want to edit Wikipedia and contribute to the content in a civil manner. I really don't need this kind of personal attacks. How can you edit some articles that user StjepanHR is involved with, when he starts to edit war and ignores the talk page? Please do something about his behavior. I was not editing Wikipedia for the last 4 days because there was a major update to Pokemon GO [8], and now when I saw the posts and statements made by user StjepanHR and realizing that he was probably behind the hidden phone calls, I am afraid to go even outside of my house. I hope this will get resolved soon. Thanks.

In city of Rijeka there are direct elections with a possible second round, for mayor of the city. Mayor is the holder of the executive power. It is uncommon but not unheard of that the opposition have the majority in the city council, and that the government (political parties supporting the mayor) are the minority. The government in the city of Rijeka, by law, is the mayor and those who support him. It can't be more clear than this. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Rijeka City_Council discussion

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

•  Volunteer note: Checking for problems...
  • Discussion on talk page Y
  • Informed all parties Y

Suitable for DRN CY. A volunteer may open the dispute after the other party has filed their statement. Meanwhile, both parties should:

N Not edit the article in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio).

N Stop all other discussions related to this dispute.

Yashovardhan (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - As the coordinator has noted, the preconditions for discussion at DRN have been met. I have a question. Do the parties want to engage in moderated discussion, or do they simply want a third party to offer an opinion? If they simply want an opinion from another editor, they may request a Third Opinion. If they want moderated discussion, they should follow the instructions above and wait for a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this a little further and only if that would be unseccessful ask for a Third Opinion. However, I will wait for the other user to make his initial statement, to see if he is willing for further discussion. StjepanHR (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Gateway_Pundit

– New discussion.

Filed by Dvlsnthedtls on 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:The Gateway Pundit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dvlsnthedtls (talk · contribs)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are many issues that have to do with the sentence, "The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes," which is in the introductory sentence. The only issue I would like to bring currently through the dispute resolution process is the placement of the sentence in the introductory paragraph. There is one editor who has taken that sentence to task, reverting any attempts to modify it's its placement to the "Controversies" section - and that editor has not justified on the talk page why he is so intent on keeping it in the introductory paragraph. Given this blog is over 13 years old, I think there needs to be a frank and open discussion about sources in the past 6-8 months that are now expressing their opinions on what kind of site The Gateway Pundit is; the blog has a reputation that existed before this election, and that seems to be marginalized with a sentence like this in a short introduction.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried asking Snooganssnoogans on the talk page why the placement needs to be where it is, but he has not responded to that query and rather argued other points about the contents of the sentence itself.

How do you think we can help?

We need to get as many people in on this discussion so we can properly weigh the pros and cons of placement of such a pointed sentence. If necessary maybe we address the wording of the sentence at the same time to kill two birds (as to the content, we need to be sure the sources are cited accurately, given how many citations Snooganssnoogans has added in support of the content).

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans

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

Talk:The Gateway_Pundit discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion, not all of it civil, on the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editor of this filing. Both parties should be aware that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available under the American politics case. The wording of the sentence in the lede does appear to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. The filing party should notify the other editor of the filing. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#More_objections_to_Inbari

– New discussion.

Filed by 238-Gdn on 00:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#More objections to Inbari (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 238-Gdn (talk · contribs)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
• Zero (talk · contribs)
• Debresser (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a longstanding dispute (search for "inbari" here[9] between the editors of Yitzchak Ginsburgh whether or not this[10] reference is considered reliable source material for this article. Many of the facts mentioned in the reference have proven to be incorrect or inaccurate, yet the editors who wish to include it claim that since it is "academic" it is therefore a reliable source. In addition, the information gleaned from that source on the current article (a BLP) borders on being libelous.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In the past, a number of requests for help have been submitted on the BLP noticboard. However, the reference is still in use on the page, including a large blockquote from the book.

How do you think we can help?

An editor who is neutral to the subject matter should check out the issue and help us decide if this reference should be used and if it is, to what extent it should be quoted.

Summary of dispute by Nomoskedasticity

The core of the problem is here, in this part of the OP's post: "the editors who wish to include it claim that since it is 'academic' it is therefore a reliable source". There's an unfortunate misconception: it is not "the editors who wish to include it" who assert that it is a reliable source -- it is our core WP:RS policy that tells us it is a reliable source. See in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the second entry, re "material ... published ... by well-regarded academic presses". The real problem on this article is connected with attempts to add material with source like this -- a newsletter published by an institute founded by Ginsburgh and headed with the words "From the teachings of Rabbi Ginsburgh" -- that's where the difficulty with WP:RS lies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zero

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

Summary of dispute by Debresser

Unfortunately, editors on Wikipedia have an almost blind belief in academic sources. As though academics can not be wrong, disagree, have POVs, be highly controversial, or even put to the use of politics. I think this is one of those cases (the POV one), but am afraid this discussion will not have the intellectual integrity to reach that conclusion. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@238-Gdn Please explain why you say Inbari has been found to be incorrect or inaccurate. Debresser (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon The usage of Inbari as a source has been discussed on the talkpage at great length, most of the discussion took place years ago. Since 238-Gdn seems to continue the discussions where it was left off, do we need recent discussion on the talkpage? Debresser (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#More_objections_to_Inbari discussion

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

• Volunteer note - Discussion on the article talk page has been minimal. Editors should discuss on the article talk page further. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk%3AWhataboutism#Teen Vogue_article_fails_to_prove_its_claim_so_is_a_bad_source

– New discussion.

Filed by DeadEyeSmile on 01:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Whataboutism#Teen Vogue_article_fails_to_prove_its_claim_so_is_a_bad_source 

Users involved

• DeadEyeSmile (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a statement of fact in the Wikipedia article but the source that it links to is an opinion piece. (Please search for "This is my argument:" on the talk page for full details of my point.) I have debated with Binksternet over the last couple of weeks about this issue and he has been unable to refute me. I went ahead and made the change today and immediately it was reverted by Volunteer Marek, who is otherwise active on the talk page but has not participated in the debate before now. I would appreciate some guidance in the best way to proceed here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Debated the point extensively for more than a week on the talk page, waited for any other interested party to join in with the debate, waited for 24 hours after asking Binksternet to refute my point again.

How do you think we can help?

It seems like a pretty straightforward issue to me but it is clouded because it is about a politically contentious figure. I think someone uninvolved in the politics of it needs to look at the argument and advise from a Wikipedia POV. Is it OK to support a statement of fact with a source that is an opinion? From what I have researched the answer is no.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

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

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

Talk%3AWhataboutism#Teen Vogue_article_fails_to_prove_its_claim_so_is_a_bad_source discussion

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

• Volunteer note - The list of editors does not include all of the editors who have discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The J. Geils Band discography

– New discussion.

Filed by TenPoundHammer on 05:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The J. Geils Band discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)
• Piriczki (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

@Piriczki: is saying that the footnote on J. Geils Band discography should say "104 on the Bubbling Under" because the actual chart said so, even though WP:USCHARTS says not to use 1xx for Bubbling Under peaks. Even though the chart he linked here says "104" for the Bubbling Under peak, this is patently wrong because there is no such position. "104" means "4 on Bubbling Under".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have shown them WP:USCHARTS which says not to use 1xx for bubbling under

How do you think we can help?

Elucidate them on policies and guidelines regarding charts

Summary of dispute by Piriczki

I cited the "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" chart as published in the March 9, 1974 edition of Billboard magazine here which shows the J. Geils Band single "Did You No Wrong" peaked at No. 104. To say otherwise violates Wikipedia policy on original research based on WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTHESIS. Piriczki (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources, such as Joel Whitburn's reference books, confirm the record peaked at 104. Piriczki (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The J. Geils Band discography discussion

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

Talk:Chera dynasty#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers

– New discussion.

Filed by Cpt.a.haddock on 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Chera dynasty#Cheras as Malayalam or Tamil speakers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs)
• Hyper9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue centres around Hyper9's contention that the "Early Cheras ruled over territories territories with Early Malayalam speakers." Regardless of the fact (as evident from the other dispute resolution case currently underway) that there are two distinct theories that date the origin of the Malayalam language—one during/before the Early Cheras and another after their reign—he insists that this statement is fact and wants it note prominently in the lead and the article's infobox.

But setting that aside, none of the sources he cites directly state that the Early Cheras spoke/ruled over territories with Early Malayalam. He repeatedly insists that:

1. Malayalam developed in the prehistoric era. [only according to one theory]
2. The Early Cheras ruled around that time.
3. Therefore, the Early Cheras ruled over territories with Malayalam speakers.

I believe that this is clearly synthesis.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Also listed on the NOR noticeboard with no takers.

How do you think we can help?

Help decide if this is WP:SYNTH or not.

Summary of dispute by Hyper9

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

Talk:Chera dynasty#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers discussion

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