Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
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, mediation, 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. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png 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 guidelines and policy when discussing issues. 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.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email).

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.

  • Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
  • 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.
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 this page 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) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Nikolai Gogol#Purging_WP:undue 7Closed DionysosProteus (t) 4 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 2 hours
Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink 1New Lemongirl942 (t) 3 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 14 hours Lysimachi (t) 2 days, 1 hours
Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content 1New Sammy1339 (t) 2 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 2 hours I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (t) 9 hours
Talk:Harry Watson, Jr. 7Closed Rajmaan (t) 1 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 17 hours
Talk:Ürümqi#Demographics 7Closed Rajmaan (t) 1 days, 23 hours UY Scuti (t) 15 hours UY Scuti (t) 15 hours
Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision 1New Gordon410 (t) 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 21 hours Florian Blaschke (t) 1 hours
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 16:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Nikolai Gogol#Purging_WP:undue[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by DionysosProteus on 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Lemongirl942 on 02:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns what term to use - "Han people" or "Han Chinese" when describing "Han Taiwanese". For example, "Han Taiwanese" are Taiwanese people of "Han Chinese" descent. I want the article to at least mention the word "Han Chinese" since multiple reliable sources use it and in English, "Han Chinese" is the WP:COMMONNAME used. Lysimachi, wants no mention of "Han Chinese" in the article saying than "Han Chinese" are different from "Han People". They have consistently scrubbed out any mention of Han Chinese, even going to lengths such as using Han people which actually redirects to Han Chinese. I have cited multiple sources but I'm unable to convince Lysimachi. I can cite the sources and explain my position, once ths discussion proceeds.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussions.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would be good for a third party to actually hear both of us. I personally feel Lysimachi is acting based on the Chinese version of the terms, but this is English Wikipedia and we use the common English terms.

Summary of dispute by Lysimachi[edit]

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

Lemongirl942 thinks the term "Han" (people/ethnicity) is the same as "Han Chinese" and has been very keen on adding "Chinese" to the article, which is why Lemongirl942 filed this dispute.


Now let's consider the two possibilities:

1. "Han" = "Han Chinese"

a. This doesn't seem to be true because:
(1). Lemongirl942 hasn't provided any reliable studies proving the two terms are completely interchangeable and have the same meaning in all contexts. Without such evidence, there is no reason to assume that two terms can be the same.
(2). "Han" only refers to the people/ethnicity "Han" (汉; Pinyin: Han), whereas "Han Chinese" can mean Chinese that are Han, as Han Taiwanese refer to Taiwanese that are Han and Hmong Americans refer to Americans that are Hmong.
(3). There are English sources where both "Han" (people/ethnicity) and "Han Chinese" do not refer to the same group of people.
b. Even if the two terms really always have the same meaning, why should we use the second more redundant term? (WP:REDUNDANCY)


2. "Han" are not necessarily "Han Chinese"

The compound "Han Chinese" is a common term, but it is often used in contexts where Han Chinese are distinguished from non-Han Chinese groups (for example), that is when the topic is Chinese people.

Taiwanese may be, in some people's view, Chinese, and Han Taiwanese may be Han Chinese. There are certainly hundreds of thousands of sources saying that Taiwan is Chinese, but citing a source and saying that in the beginning of the WP article on Taiwan is not how WP should work per WP:NPOV. And this is exactly what Lemongirl942 has been trying to do to the article Han Taiwanese. (Note that neutrality is especially important in the lead, where Lemongirl942 has been attempting to add "Chinese". WP:LEAD: "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.")

Any scholars aware of the issue of Taiwanese identity, such as the author of Is Taiwan Chinese?, would clearly distinguish between "Han" and "Chinese" instead of using "Han Chinese" as a synonym of "Han". And it should be stressed that saying Han Taiwanese are "Han", as in the current version of the lead, maintains a neutral point of view on whether Han Taiwanese are Chinese or not, and helps the article to focus on its topic, the Han people of Taiwan.


To summarize, due to redundancy and difference in meaning, describing Han Taiwanese with the disputable label "Chinese" is unnecessary and not neutral per Wikipedia policies. Lysimachi (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink discussion[edit]

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 party has notified the other editor of the filing of this request. Waiting for a response from the other editor, since participation here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Sammy1339 on 02:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the use of a blog post by Harriet Hall in the article on Michael Greger. The post comes from Science Based Medicine, a "nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group" which applies editorial oversight to submissions from the public, but apparently not to the primary contributors, including Hall. I believe that the use of this source, in context, violates WP:BLPSPS and that the relevant section of WP:RS makes clear that self-published expert sources cannot be used for claims about a person. Other editors feel that the claim is about Greger's work, and that therefore the policy doesn't apply.

Complicating matters, a number of new and IP accounts have repeatedly tried to remove the problematic material for months. Since some of them show up with knowledge of BLP policy, it's clear there is some activism going on. However, I happen to think they are right.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page.

Alexbrn reminds me that there were also noticeboard discussions, which were unproductive in my view. [1] [2] [3]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

It seems like a straightforward matter to me - either WP:BLPSPS applies here or I am mistaken and it doesn't.


Summary of dispute by Sammy1339[edit]

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

In response to Robert McClenon's question, this particularly concerns the final sentence of the lede, "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits." I claim that this is a statement about Greger, and therefore the use of a SPS is inappropriate. Others think this is a statement about Greger's work, and therefore BLPSPS does not apply. This also affects the second paragraph of the Career and Advocacy section. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Which other editors do you think belong here? I will add them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

At least those who you have contacted on their talk pages. Personally I'd suggest adding everybody who has added or removed the Hall content recently (within the last 14 days say). Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
To remove all such concerns I added everyone who has ever commented on this issue or edited the relevant material. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog[edit]

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

The content being disputed is the following: Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos in which he claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness" and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think".[1]

References

  1. ^ Hall HA (February 12, 2013). "Death as a Foodborne Illness Curable by Veganism". Science-based Medicine. Retrieved December 13, 2015. 

The OP believes that this content is about Greger. As Alexbrn and I have explained on the Talk page, it is about the claims that Greger made. If the content said "Greger is a quack" the OP would have a point. It doesn't say that. Advocates for Greger have been unhappy with this content for a long time (for example, the page is now locked because a SPA kept deleting this - see Special:Contributions/Iloveinfo22) and it has been discussed to death at various noticeboards and on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn[edit]

Wikipedia has a policy for biographical subject matter (WP:BLP) and a policy that covers fringe views (WP:PSCI within WP:NPOV). The latter says we should include an "explanation of how scientists have reacted" to the fringe view. This we do in the Greger article, and so are in line with the relevant policy. Obviously we wouldn't use the same source for biographical details about Greger. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(Procedural note: I am concerned that this filing does not properly list the participants in the dispute. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC))


Summary of dispute by Iloveinfo22[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by JzG[edit]

Not liking consensus does not constitute a dispute requiring resolution. There is no dispute here, only Wikipedia's use of reality-based sources (Harriet Hall is a noted authority on quackery and fraudulent medical claims) versus a sincere wish that the world was not as it is. Greger's claims are bullshit, the scientific literature typically does not bother addressing bullshit (the recent paper on chemtrails being a striking exception), so we use scientifically informed commentary from noted authorities to establish what the reality-based community thinks of such claims.

As a point of administrivia, I am not convinced that Bluemousered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Ciopenhauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Ckrystalrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Cschepker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Iloveinfo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are separate people. If they are, then the arrival in short order of several limited-purpose "warriors for The Truth™" may indicate offsite solicitation, not uncommon when Wikipedia critiques evidentially unsupported but lucrative claims. Guy (Help!) 06:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bluemousered[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Ciopenhauer[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Ckrystalrose[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Brianyoumans[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Gruffduff62[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by SageRad[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Cschepker[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Dodger67[edit]

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

I have no idea why I'm listed here, as far as I can determine I have not edited the article or the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dialectric[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants[edit]

I participated in one of the previous discussion, 8 months ago at a noticeboard and not at the article. I believe I already voiced my thoughts about the subject there. I have re-read what I wrote then, and my views have not substantially changed. If an individual makes fringe claims about science in popular media, then popular media skeptics are absolutely appropriate sources to cite in the article. Also, that anyone wishing to allege a skeptical bias on the part of the Wikipedia community needs to be able to produce evidence of this before they have any right to expect me, or anyone else to take them seriously. I really have nothing else to add to this discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DrChrissy[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc[edit]

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

This is ludicrous. Either the claims have been criticized or they haven't (they have). Pedantry of the sort being argued by in the OP is a waste of everyone's time. I recommend closing as tendentious. jps (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ThePlatypusofDoom[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Viewmont Viking[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Ronz[edit]

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


Summary of dispute by Sapeli[edit]

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


Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: I have notified all listed participants, who were not notified by the filing party. The noticeboard discussions are all stale, and the only discussion with substance was at WP:FT/N. It appears that there may be other involved editors not listed in the filing. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - I thank AntiCompositeNumber for notifying the other participants. It is still the responsibility of the filing party to list all of the editors including themselves. Also, the filing party is asked to state what the content dispute is as to whether the policy WP:BLPSPS applies, since the purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve article content issues. There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)}}

Talk:Harry Watson, Jr.[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rajmaan on 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Talk:Ürümqi#Demographics[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rajmaan on 17:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Gordon410 on 17:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Freeman's extermination view is a fringe theory because it is not supported by sources and should be edited according to WP:Fringe_theories. Freeman's theory of extermination is a historical theory and should be documented as such. Currently, the theory takes undo precedence to the modern theory of Allen and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#.27Romano-Brittonic.27_peoples.27_fate_in_the_south-east

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I submitted a dispute notice twice, I have submitted a fringe theory notice, and I have attempted to get a third opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ#What_if_my_dispute_has_two_viewpoints_but_multiple_editors.3F.

How do you think we can help?

Edit Freeman's theory of extermination to one sentence. Reword the lead to suggest the debate is over. Or we can put Freeman's theory into a historical section because, as TFD states, "the theory remains important because of its historical significance."

Summary of dispute by Florian Blaschke[edit]

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

I completely agree that Freeman's view is now considered fringe and far too extreme, as the evidence from historical, linguistic, genetic and archaeological sources all indicates more survival of the pre-Germanic culture and people than he was ready to admit, despite uncertainty about details. The History of the Norman Conquest of England#Themes points out how ideologically biased he was, personally invested in a belief in the "purely Teutonic nature of the English nation", which made him overlook that his view wasn't even internally consistent! Maybe this political context should be pointed out. Undue weight should certainly be avoided, which means the "extermination hypothesis" should be presented as obsolete, not as a still-current alternative hypothesis. Currently, the article does indeed present Freeman too positively. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that Urselius fails to appreciate that the relevance of the linguistic argument that points to a dearth of Celtic loanwords in English has been repeatedly been challenged in recent years. First, it is argued (e. g., in The Celtic Roots of English) that the number of loanwords is not as low as was thought in the 19th century (where it was thought there were almost none); second, it is pointed out (by Schrijver especially) that the Britons might have already been Latinised at the time (at least in the southeast), helping explain why there are not more loanwords; and third, loanwords may not even be expected in a language-shift scenario – there are analogous cases where we know that there was a shift, but there are few if any loanwords (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Instead, we more frequently find structural influence, especially in the grammar; a particularly striking parallel is the substantive verb. See Brittonicisms in English for more detail. 19th-century scholars tended to know very little about Celtic, especially considering that Celtology was in its infancy at the time in general. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Urselius[edit]

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

As is explained in the article, the Extermination/displacement hypothesis is still referred to in modern (ie now, contemporary, happening at this point in time) reviews of the subject. It remains relevant because modern scholars are still referring to it, it is the starting point of their arguments. These arguments are in agreement or opposition to it to varying degrees, but it remains the fons et origo of all theories about English ethnogenesis.

How did this viewpoint arise? The major starting point was the English language; it contains, and has only ever contained, perhaps a dozen words from the language of the native Britons - the most prominent word being "basket". What was the most obvious, and remains the most obvious, reason for this undisputed fact? The most obvious reason would be that the Anglo-Saxons rarely spoke to the natives, and that the modern English owe almost none of their ancestry to the Britons. Again the most straightforward explanation for this is if the Anglo-Saxons crossed the North Sea in huge numbers, and, once in Britain, drove out any Britons they did not kill. Fortuitously, there is a definite recorded immigration of Britons into the parts of NW Gaul that became Brittany, which occurred at the right time for them to have been displaced from Britain by the incoming Anglo-Saxons.

The article as it stands is far, far more supportive of the acculturation theory than the mass-migration and extermination theories, whilst maintaining a degree of impartiality. In direct contradiction to what has been said previously in this resolution debate the extermination theory has a very low-profile in the article. Also, again in contradiction to a comment below, the results of DNA studies are far from reaching any consensus in resolving English ethnogenesis (to be brief, the English have been ascribed anywhere between <20% to 100% continental "Anglo-Saxon" ancestry). I am a geneticist, and know some of the people doing this work, and can prove my point quite easily by referring to half a dozen papers with widely divergent results (indeed some are referred to in the article already).

Do I believe the extermination scenario to be accurate, do I support it? No I do not! I consider the acculturation theory to be much more plausible. So why am I defending the inclusion, integrated within the text, of this theory? I refer to my arguments above. It is still referred to regularly in modern scholarship.

The people wanting to stick the theory in a "bin" labelled "fringe and historical" need to prove that it is no longer found in current scholarship. They cannot do this as there are countless books and articles written since 1990, since 2000, since 2010 that refer to it. Their arguments are pointless in the face of this fact. Urselius (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TFD[edit]

At one time there was a belief in ethnically homogeneous peoples sharing the same ancestry and language. According to that theory, the British Isles were Celtic but the population of what is today England was replaced by Teutons. Current scholarship, partly aided by DNA research, rejects that view, but the theory remains important because of its historical significance. Another issue is the use of the term "genocide." Genocide is a modern concept and it is anachronistic to apply it to pre-modern mass killings. The modern concept of race had not been developed. TFD (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Collect[edit]

The sad truth is that modern DNA studies offer actual evidence and not surmise on the topic, and theories which are in conflict with the latest such studies do, alas, are now "fringe." This article ought not present theories which conflict with DNA results as still being mainstream any more. Collect (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Johnbod[edit]

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

Entirely agree with Urselius. Freeman is mentioned precisely twice, in the same para: "One theory, first set out by Edward Augustus Freeman, suggests that the Anglo Saxons and the Britons were competing cultures ..." and "However, Freeman's ideas did not go unchallenged, even as they were being propounded." This is entirely appropriate. Anyone who thinks all notion of "competing cultures" is now "fringe" has simply not been reading the literature; unfortunately I believe this applies to some of the editors here. There have been a number of studies (mostly on pretty tiny numbers of samples by normal medical or scientific standards) of DNA & isotope analysis, which have as always produced results that appear a good deal less than completely consistent. Anyone who thinks these have now settled the matter (as Collect does) is completely wrong. One day they will no doubt contribute to a more settled understanding, but a lot more data is needed; it is very early days for this branch of research. The whole subject is complex and controversial, with academic debate very much continuing, and we are lucky to have User:J Beake and Urselius, who respectively largely wrote the current form of the article and have maintained it against a string of inexpert assaults, of which that by User:Gordon410 is the latest and much the most persistent. He began back in April, starting the talk page section "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain - What Really Happened" with "I believe that the debate about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is over. The following account is difficult to disagree with: [terrible draft para follows, everybody disagreed]. Since then he has peppered the talk page with alternating demands and questions, rubbishing all sources produced that do not support him, and showing no capacity for following complex academic debates. The current form of the article is balanced, and certainly does not support an "extermination" hypothesis, which is given one para in a very long article. Reading the fairly short Chapter 6 of The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology of 2011 on "the molecular evidence" should dispel any impression that the matter is settled - and by the way the author cheerfully says that "many feasible scenarios can be constructed, with analogues of genoicide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement, social demoralization..." (p. 88 - thanks to User:Doug Weller for the link). If the article has a fault it is relying too much on primary research sources, and crappy short journalistic pieces on them, rather than "review"-type academic sources. Something of a WP:MEDRS approach would be useful here. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Odysseus1479[edit]

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

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for comments by other editors, since discussion here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)