Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
|
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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Nivkh alphabets | New | Modun (t) | 3 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 19 hours | Kwamikagami (t) | 2 days, 13 hours |
Metrication in the United Kingdom | In Progress | Friendliness12345 (t) | 3 days, 10 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 hours | DeFacto (t) | 1 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 19:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
[edit]Nivkh alphabets
[edit]Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Good day! Initially, the dispute began because of my moderation of the specified article. I just rechecked in what form the link in the specified form has the current alphabet. My other opponent ignored this fact, and began to insist that the letters he replaced are allographs, but no convincing evidence was shown, and for some reason now I have to prove the opposite. My other opponent behaves as if the colonizer knows more than other natives and is trying to teach them to read and write. Sorry, maybe for the unfortunate analogy. But the evidence provided is more like OR.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[1]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Either the opponent will provide other, more convincing evidence, or roll back the edits to match the ALREADY EXISTING references in the article.
Summary of dispute by Kwamikagami
[edit]These letter variants are allographs, per sources, and both variants are acceptable for the writing of Nivkh and many other languages of Siberia. (For example, ⟨Ң⟩ with a ticked tail and ⟨Ӈ⟩ with a curved tail, and similarly with other letters in the series, e.g Қ/Ӄ and Ҳ/Ӽ.) AFAICT, Modun has failed to provide a single source to the contrary, and is relying solely on WP:TRUTH.
We have as one source, in a discussion about why it was a mistake for Unicode to assign separate characters to these curved ⟨Ӈ⟩ letter variants, and the reasons Unicode has refused to do the same for additional letters (e.g. a curved variant of ⟨Ҷ⟩ che), by an expert in some of the languages in question (namely N. and E. Khanty and Nenets), an account of how a an influential textbook publishing house (Education Ltd.) created the curved-tail glyphs as in-house variants of these letters for their primers, primary-grade textbooks and other materials when publishing in the govt-assigned alphabet. This is part of a series of discussions involving multiple linguists working on these languages. We also have recent govt publications, in Nivkh, using the original ticked (e.g. ⟨Ң⟩) forms of the letters, including formal material such as trade documents. That is, both forms are in use in the modern era. Modun keep providing sources that use the Education variants of the letters, e.g. ⟨Ӈ⟩, as if they somehow negates the other. Modun has reverted the addition of the ticked variants to the alphabet charts and deleted a reference to the Unicode discussion, replacing it with a 'cn' tag.
There's nothing suggesting Nivkh is special in this regard. It's a general feature of these letters across the minority languages of Siberia, no more significant than the difference between double-loop ⟨g⟩ vs script ⟨ɡ⟩ in English, and unusual only in that Unicode (mistakenly) assigned them separate codes.
For Khanty, another language of Siberia that uses some of these letters, we recently found an orthography committee who decided that the curved-tail variants ⟨Ӈ Ԓ⟩ are to be preferred. At the same time, the principle Khanty language journal has gone in the opposite direction, using a third variant, ⟨Ӊ Ӆ⟩ with a diagonal tail. Modun insists these are different alphabets, despite no evidence for that idea, because allographs supposedly do not occur in Cyrillic. When I pointed out the extensive allography between Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian, he said those were "font" differences. Well, these are "font" differences too: Education Ltd created their own font for their textbooks.
Because two graphic variants are used for these letters in Nivkh, both by official sources, both should be included in the article. We should presumably stick to one for the examples for consistency, but the alphabet charts should reflect what people actually use. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't say that allographers don't encounter it in Cyrillic. And excuse me, why is the commission for discussing alphabets of one language(s) applicable to another language? It's the same as if we were now discussing the spelling of the English language and why the results would be applicable to other languages (for example, to French, Spanish or other languages).
- The source you indicated discusses the Tofa, Khanty and Evenki alphabets, as far as I remember, but there is no mention of the Nivkh alphabet.
- This is a direct lie about deletion!
- This is what it was like before the rollback: 1, This is what happened after the rollback: 2, 3 and here's what happened next, you added the link LATER!
- You can't even provide convincing evidence that these letters are "allographs". This is not a proven fact! Modun (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- These forms are allographs across the board, per RS's. They were part of a general Soviet standardization of the minority languages of Russia and occur in multiple languages.
- I would think govt ministry publications in Nivkh would count as evidence that both variants are used in Nivkh. That's also suggested by the history, that the curved variants were created by Education Ltd. after the Nivkh alphabet had been created, and were used in Nivkh material, following the govt-set orthography, by Education Ltd.
- Deleting a citation and replacing it with a 'cn' tag is a deletion. Calling that a "lie" doesn't change anything. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- you bring your conclusions into practice. We do not know for what reasons and why different variants of alphabets were used, and bring this conclusion into practice because these are "allographs" it looks like OR.
- here is an example of how you started a "discussion" you deleted the CN column (deleting CN) Modun (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, here is an excerpt from a discussion about the Khanty countries, where one of your oponets also thinks that this is OR, and at least he is not being disingenuous and does not call things by their proper names. You are inflating an unproven statement as a “fact”. Modun (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, your TRUTH is 'fact', but expert conclusions are 'OR'.
- We follow sources. It's as simple as that. If you have RS's to support your claims, great! Let's see them. So far you've provided nothing.
- BTW, I just found another example of a Nivx text that uses the original letter forms, this time the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, bilingual Nivx and Russian. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Great, the document was published in the old version of the alphabet. Where is the fact that these letters are allographs? I am a moderator and author of a translation of an article from Russian Wikipedia. Why do I have to prove anything to you?
- I asked you a simple question, can you provide another source somewhere where it is said that the indicated letters are allographs? You are constantly trying to give me that this is a "fact". Well, at least provide another source where this is also indicated. Moreover, in the correspondence you indicated, not all linguists agree with this interpretation, but for some reason you ignore this opinion.
- You adjust the practice to your convenient picture. This is already OR. Modun (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6.
- Practically given by linguists, and no one mentions any "allographs" or the use of any other alphabets at the same time. Everyone consciously uses the same alphabets. But for some reason the opinion of these linguists does not interest you. I doubt that these people made any mistake. No one even mentions the interchangeability of some letters. Modun (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- But it's not in the old alphabet, is it? It's the modern alphabet with all of the letters introduced in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Nivkh alphabets discussion
[edit]Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
[edit]I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and say that you agree to the ground rules. In particular, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It is not resulting in any progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.
The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I will ask a question that I usually ask at the beginning of moderated discussion. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Do not explain the reasons why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged, at this time. We will go into the reasons later, but at this time I am only asking what the issues are, not why there are issues. I understand that there are issues about original research; we can go into them later. However, if there are issues about the reliability of sources, please state them at this time, so that we can ask about them at the reliable source noticeboard.
If there are multiple points in the article that are in dispute, please provide a concise list.
Please state concisely what the content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree. Let's try. Modun (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Summary below. — kwami (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Nivkh)
[edit]- Summary of Kwami's position: There are two possible pathways, depending on which of us the sources support. Of course, it's possible that RSs might contradict each other. I make three proposals: [a] what I would like to see if I'm correct, [b] what I'd like to see if Modun is correct, and [c] a second issue of using proper alphabetic letters rather than punctuation marks for the Nivx alphabet.
- [a] If I'm correct, there are duplicate Unicode characters for several Cyrillic letters used with Siberian languages, according to discussions at Unicode about encoding more of them by linguists who specialize in these languages. Several of these letters are used for Nivx, namely Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ. We should reflect the RS that these are allographs, note that the variants were invented by a specific influential textbook publishing company, and note that both variants are found in official documents. Both variants should be listed in the alphabet charts, though for conciseness we should choose one for the examples.
- (There is also the letter Ӻ, which should be mentioned, but because Unicode has refused to encode a second variant of it, due to the argument that that is a mere allograph and not a distinct letter, it wouldn't appear directly in the alphabet charts unless we wanted to use SVG images.)
- [b] If I understand correctly, Modun claims that Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ are not allographs, but instead that there are two distinct Nivx alphabets in current use, with apparently identical orthographic rules. If true, the article would still need to reflect that. If Modun can find RS's for that claim, then we should list the two alphabets side by side. We would need to use SVG's for Ӻ, because there is no Unicode support for it in the second alphabet. Perhaps we could merge the cells of the alphabet table where the letters are identical, assuming the same sorting order. Since we would then have competing RS's about the nature of the distinction, we should note the disagreement. We should still choose one alphabet for the examples.
- [c] There is a second issue, that of replacing Nivx letters with punctuation marks. We should instead use proper letters, i.e. ⟨Кʼ Ӄʼ/Қʼ Пʼ Тʼ⟩ and dialectically ⟨Чʼ⟩. Here on WP-en, we use the appropriate Unicode characters for apostrophe-like letters. For example, we use the dedicated letter ⟨ʻ⟩ for the Hawaiian ʻokina, and not the single quotation mark. Similarly with other apostrophe-like letters, regardless of whether the script is Latin, Cyrillic or something else. In this case, the alphabetic letter is U+02BC modifier letter apostrophe. Currently the article uses U+2019 right single quotation mark. These characters look more-or-less the same but can behave quite differently. U+2019 is regularly replaced by the ASCII apostrophe per the no-curly-quotes rule of the MOS. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Explanation: Cyrillic alphabets of many small (and not only) peoples of Russia (mainly in the North, Siberia and the Far East) have changed, revised and clarified many times. Accordingly, many different variations of orthography were formed, which cancelled the old variations. Often changing the alphabet itself. UNICODE has no competence to change or interpret either the composition of existing alphabets or the current orthographies. The UNICODE consortium is based on the existing orthographies of specific languages. Specific alphabets and orthographies of languages in Russia are established and interpreted by the Russian government (or regional ones within their competence).
“ | 6. В Российской Федерации алфавиты государственного языка Российской Федерации и государственных языков республик строятся на графической основе кириллицы. Иные графические основы алфавитов государственного языка Российской Федерации и государственных языков республик могут устанавливаться федеральными законами.
7. Порядок утверждения норм языков коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации, правил орфографии и пунктуации этих языков определяется Правительством Российской Федерации. 6. In the Russian Federation, the alphabets of the state language of the Russian Federation and the state languages of the republics are constructed on the graphic basis of the Cyrillic alphabet. Other graphic bases of the alphabets of the state language of the Russian Federation and the state languages of the republics may be established by federal laws. 7. The procedure for approving the norms of the languages of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, the rules of spelling and punctuation of these languages is determined by the Government of the Russian Federation. |
” |
— The federal law "On the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation" Article 3. Legal status of languages |
- The indicated letters Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ have a separate codification in Unicode, and were not originally "variations" of each other. It seems that no spelling reference book says that the letters in question can be variations of each other. This is an assumption that arose from who knows what. Perhaps this is the reason why the old version of the alphabet is used instead of the new one, because not all the letters of the alphabet were codified.
- Some sources indicate that for the Nivkh language (Amur dialect) from 1953 to 1979 there was one version of the alphabet. 2, 3, 4, 5 At least, if we are to believe the Nivkh-Russian dictionary of 1970, authored by V.N. Savelyev and Ch.M. Taksami, it had the following form:
А а | Б б | В в | Г г | ӷ | ɧ | ⱨ | Д д | Е е | Ё ё | Ж ж | З з |
И и | Й й | Йи йи | К к | К’ к’ | Қ қ | Қʼ қʼ | Л л | М м | Н н | Ң ң | О о |
П п | П’ п’ | Р р | Рш рш | С с | Т т | Т’ т’ | У у | Ф ф | Х х | Ҳ ҳ | Һ һ |
Ц ц | Ч ч | Ш ш | Щ щ | ъ | Ы ы | ь | Э э | Ю ю | Я я |
And after 1979, modern alphabets already looked like this: 1
А а | Б б | В в | Г г | Ӷ ӷ | Ғ ғ | Ӻ ӻ | Д д | Е е | Ё ё | Ж ж | З з |
И и | Й й | К к | К’ к’ | Ӄ ӄ | Ӄ’ ӄ’ | Л л | М м | Н н | Ӈ ӈ | О о | П п |
П’ п’ | Р р | Р̌ р̌ | С с | Т т | Т’ т’ | У у | Ў ў | Ф ф | Х х | Ӽ ӽ | Ӿ ӿ |
Ц ц | Ч ч | Ш ш | Щ щ | ъ | Ы ы | ь | Э э | Ю ю | Я я |
Vladimir Sangi (one of the authors of the alphabet) mentions that the alphabets for both dialects were adopted by the Council of Ministers (government) of the RSFSR in 1979. Perhaps if we could find this document, we would clarify the situation in what form the modern alphabet was adopted.7, 8--Modun (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Metrication in the United Kingdom
[edit]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
There is an on going dispute around consensus on changing the existing lead imagine.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#The lead photo
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Confirming the consensus, and the opinion of the third party.
Summary of dispute by DeFacto
[edit]This section is to be written by DeFacto, not the filing editor. --Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
Defacto does not believe consensus has been made by the third opinion and Friendliness12345 on the replacement of the current imagine. |
As I see it, the dispute is over whether the third opinion supported my view or that of Friendliness12345 with respect to whether the lead image should now be replaced.
My view is that the 3O supported my view that a consensus to change the lead image had not been achieved in the discussion and that the image which had used for about 10 years should be restored per WP:STATUSQUO.
As I understand it, Friendliness12345's view is that the 3O, effectively, somehow established a new consensus that the lead image should be replaced by one of the other images that had been proposed as an alternative in the original lead image discussion of more than 10 years ago (and not the image that Friendliness12345 had been pushing for and had already set as the lead view without consensus). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Metrication in the United Kingdom discussion
[edit]- Volunteer Note: The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks am new to this process and have now done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendliness12345 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note: DeFacto has not replied to this issue in the "Summary of dispute by DeFacto" section, and has not edited for the past few days. If there's no reply within 24 hours, I'll close this discussion. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Metrication)
[edit]I will be the moderator in this case. Please keep in mind that DRN is a voluntary, non-binding noticeboard. Here, we're dealing with content issues, not conduct issues. Please read and indicate in your responses your acceptance of Wikipedia:DRN Rule A.
After reading through the discussion, I find it unlikely that mediation will bring agreement between the editors (although if both of you want it, we can attempt it), so it's probably better if we try to create an RfC instead. The RfC would have these two options: File:Tomatoes_for_sale_in_a_UK_greengrocer's_shop_2013.jpg and File:The_Black_Arch_near_Larne_(2)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_851820.jpg. Are you fine with an RfC like this, do you have any suggestions to it, and do you have any other concerns or comments? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kovcszaln6, I thought the dispute was about whether the 3O supported my view that there was no current consensus to change the image and that the status quo image should be restored, or the view of Friendliness12345 that the 10-year-old consensus was wrong and that the image should be left as it is now with the 'black arch' one hich they have already changed it to.
- Once we have confirmed from that what the current image should be, then we could decide whether we want to continue the discussion already started at the talkpage in relation to an RfC. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DeFacto: Alright, I might have misunderstood the dispute here. So you didn't come here to decide what the lead image should be (permanently), but what the status quo is and what should be the lead image while you create an RfC, right? If yes, then I don't think DRN is the best place for deciding that. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kovcszaln6, it seems that the only reason we are here is because the filer either misunderstood, or didn't like, the third opinion received following their request for that.
- I say that because, while I was away over the last few days, it seems there has been progress back at the article, with two other editors having agreed with me, and overruling the filer by restoring the original status quo image.
- I think this request has turned out to be a waste of your time, and mine, and that it should be closed now as there is no longer a dispute.
- Thanks for offering your help with this though. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DeFacto: Alright, I might have misunderstood the dispute here. So you didn't come here to decide what the lead image should be (permanently), but what the status quo is and what should be the lead image while you create an RfC, right? If yes, then I don't think DRN is the best place for deciding that. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)