Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 142

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gordon410 on 17:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Gordon410 (talk · contribs) Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs) Urselius (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) Collect (talk · contribs) Johnbod (talk · contribs) Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs) 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 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 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) Note that Florian Blaschke has completely missed the point of my argument. Of course I know about recent linguistic supports for a Brittonic substratum for Old and Middle English, I have added references to them to the article myself (easily checked). He, like a number of others, mistakes my argument for the retention of the extermination/displacement theory within the text of the article for support for the theory. This is despite numerous instances of my stating my personal preference for the acculturation theory. How does one dispute with people who cannot grasp what the motivations of scholarship are? Personally, I am convinced that the extermination/displacement theory is incorrect, but it needs to be retained because of its importance in the history of scholarly debate, its continued position in the collective psyche, its continued use in scholarly writings and because it represents one extreme of a wide spectrum of scenarios. Urselius (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces At one time there was a belief in ethnically homogeneous peoples sharing the same ancestry, culture 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 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 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 genocide, 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 I haven‘t been involved long enough to summarize with any cogency or add to what‘s been covered above in that regard—I just commented on a couple of papers that were brought up at WP:FTN. That said, since others are also stating their positions, I‘ll try and briefly offer a few random ‘outside’ opinions. What I gather of Freeman‘s hypothesis from the article is that to call it “extermination” is something of a caricature, as it includes enslavement, expulsion, and so on—but that may be nitpicking. I don‘t think the essential idea, in some nuanced form, is “fringe“ either. Ignoring all the challenges and complications, or bringing along whatever chauvinistic baggage Freeman may have had, would be another matter. But nobody expects a 150-year-old work to be up to current standards, and I don’t think the article presents it so. Outdated ideas often have paedagogical value, and hold some interest with regard to the history of a discipline, even if they‘ve become irrelevant to modern researchers. Regarding the genetic evidence, it seems to me far from conclusive. One problem is distinguishing ‘insular’ genomes from ‘continental’, especially considering the similarity between ‘Celtic‘ and ‘Germanic‘ peoples (certainly in the eyes of classical authors), and demonstrated by the wide variations in various studies‘ results; another is that modern statistical distributions can say little about the population’s history, making it hard to distinguish an ‘invasion‘ from a process that may have been begun with the Iron Age or earlier; and even stipulating a discernible change in the post-Roman period there are several possible mechanisms, aside from extermination, to explain that. Overall I think the article does pretty well WRT neutrality on the question.—Odysseus1479 09:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Richard Keatinge Support Johnbod's account. I would add that the article could usefully be clearer to non-academic readers, but that any clarification should be done by someone who understands the underlying academic evidence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision 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 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) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Obrenović dynasty

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by N Jordan on 00:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Obrenović dynasty (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved N Jordan (talk · contribs) Crow (talk · contribs) 24.135.188.99 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Since February 2016, the unregistered user (IP 24.135.188.99) continues editing this article by inserting information about the person who claims he's a legitimate heir of this royal house. He refuses position of leading contemporary historians and insists on an alternate view of the history. However, he does not provide any reliable sources but insists they are destroyed due to a conspiracy against that family. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I suggested a text that would acknowledge the existence of pretenders and their claims. I asked for reliable sources. User Crow also tried to help and asked for unbiased sources. I applied for WP:3 and user Robert McClenon tried to assist. However, the discussion is lengthy and disorganized, so he couldn't help. How do you think we can help? Help us to create a paragraph that will be based on reliable sources. Protect the article so it can not be edited by unregistered users. Summary of dispute by Crow I am not involved in this dispute per se, in that I have no particular interest in the content of the article, other than having insisted on reliable sourcing for any assertions made by either side. As most of the sources are in Serbian, that further removes me from active content opinions here. I became aware of this after seeing H.R.H. Prince Predrag R. Obrenović cross NPP as an unsourced blp. The disputed page was linked from that so I went there to find the same unsourced claims being added there. I reverted their addition once then went to the talk page to let the IP know that sources were required. That's all I've been asking for. N Jordan's summary is accurate from what I've observed: the IP insists that their version is correct but cannot provide sources other than suggesting someone write to a Serbian court for their ruling. If it can be proven via reliable source then so much the better for everyone. Failing that, I think N Jordan's offer of a compromise describing the claims and claimants is quite collegial given potential undue-weight concerns. CrowCaw 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by unregistered user Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Obrenović dynasty 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 adequate discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been properly notified of this filing by the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I don't know much about the subject other than that the Obrenovic dynasty ruled Serbia before being displaced by another dynasty. It is up to the editors to state the facts; my job is to facilitate discussion. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to improve or complain about the editors. Every editor should check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and reply to questions within 48 hours. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not reply to the comments of other editors; avoid back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator and the community. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors Statements by N Jordan The assassination of king Alexander of Serbia resulted in the end of the Obrenović dynasty. King Alexander seemed on the verge of proclaming his wife’s brother as heir to the throne. The coup d’état was organized by the military conspirators who invaded the royal palace and murdered king Alexander, queen Draga, and some members of the court. "Alexander". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-king-of-Serbia>. The royal couple was brutally assassinated by officers in the palace in Belgrade in 1903, bringing an end to the Obrenović dynasty. The Skupština (Serbian National Assembly) invited Peter Karadjordjević to return as King Peter I. "Serbia: The scramble for the Balkans ". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 < https://www.britannica.com/place/Serbia/Government-and-society#ref477293 >. The officers’ conspiracy to assassinate the unpopular king Alexander Obrenović was initiated by Dragutin Dimitrijevic Apis (an army officer) in 1901 and carried out in June 1903. "Dragutin Dimitrijevic". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dragutin-Dimitrijevic> N Jordan (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderator One editor has made some sourced statements about the overthrow of the Obrenovic dynasty. Those statements appear to be consistent with what is currently in the article. I had asked for a statement of what the issues were. I assume that the editor who made that statement thinks that those statements should remain in the article. Is there a question about whether those statements should be in the article? Is there another issue? I assume that there is an issue, or the editors wouldn't have requested mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors Statements by N Jordan In current text, there is a statement that is not true: “…conspiracy organized by Prince Petar Karadjordjević”. Also, Black Hand was a secret military society established in 1910 (7 years after the murder of king Alexander), by officers who participated in May Coup – not an underground movement that murdered the king. The issue is the following sentence that is currently removed from the article: “After the overthrow one of their branch, descended from Jakov Obrenović, Miloš Obrenović's brother, H.R.H.Prince Predrag R. Obrenović became the successor of the Royal House Obrenovic and the Obrenovic claimant to the Serbian throne, after the breakup of Yugoslavia.”. The source was not provided since October 2015. Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Obrenović_dynasty&type=revision&diff=737124748&oldid=737119789 for differences. --N Jordan (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Comment by Crow @Robert McClenon: I made a preliminary above but as implied there, I don't have a lot to contribute content-wise to this dispute. To your second statement above, the crux of the dispute (I believe) is the IPs addition of the unsourced statement about Predrag R. Obrenović. I don't believe anything in the article as it stands is disputed by the IP, but that they wish to add that information on a claimant to the Serbian throne without a reliable source. I suspect the IP has been dissuaded from the dispute by the full-prot currently on the page. What may happen when that expires, we shall have to see. I would prefer the edit war not resume of course. CrowCaw 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator One editor has responded to my requests for statements of the issues. The other editors have not. If there is no reply within the next day, I will have to close this thread due to inactivity. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors Statements by N Jordan The statement that conspiracy was organized by Prince Petar Karadjordjevic is unsourced and should be removed from the article. The unsourced statement about Predrag R. Obrenovic should not be inserted. I'm afraid that after the expiration of protection, we may go back to square one. I'm suggesting the following compromise: The family's rule came to an end in a coup d’état by the military conspirators who invaded the royal palace and murdered Alexander, who died without an heir. The National Assembly of Serbia invited Peter Karađorđević to become a king of Serbia. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, some descendants from Jakov Obrenović, Miloš Obrenović's half-brother, declared themselves successors of the Royal House of Obrenovic and elected their pretender to the defunct throne of Serbia. --N Jordan (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Khan Noonien_Singh

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Davidkevin on 01:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Khan Noonien Singh (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Davidkevin (talk · contribs) Izno (talk · contribs) Dbrodbeck (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The 1967 Star Trek episode specifically describes in dialog Khan Noonien Singh as being a product of selective breeding. The 1982 movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan]] specifically describes in dialog Khan Noonien Singh as being a product of genetic engineering. There is a consistent effort to make the article inaccurate by the WP:OR of presuming that what was said in the television episode was not what the writer meant, and that what the writer really meant was the phrase in the movie despite what was actually said, a phrase not even existent in the English language in 1967. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Further, bad faith -- bullying -- is in fact being used to make the article incorrect and inaccurate through this OR. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Citing the dialogue in the episode and film as the writers' intended language. Weasel worded, Orwellian twisting is being used to assert that what the writers wrote wasn't really what they intended and that certain Wikipedian editors know what the "real" intent was. How do you think we can help? Making it clear that changing dialog from that stated in order to fit with their fan ideas of what was meant in a Star Trek episode and movie is inappropriate, and keeping the correct version of the article from being constantly changed by people practicing WP:OWN. The idea "that the characters in the screenplays are not reliable sources" for what they say is metaphysical gibberish -- what is said in the episode and movie dialog is in fact what is meant in them. Summary of dispute by Izno Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. David began this dispute over a year ago attempting to insert text similar to [1]. A discussion began at Talk:Khan Noonien Singh#RetCon Exists. David appears to believe that it is not WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTHESIS) to attempt to make this edit. He has not presented a reliable source to back up his claims, and as I have explained on the talk page, the distinction he is seeking to make isn't relevant to the general reader--even if there weren't deeper policy implications. Three separate editors, including the editor that took the article to FA, have reverted him at one point or another, so it may be desirable to glance over the article history as well. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dbrodbeck Thank you for the notification, I had no idea. Izno has pretty much summarized my thoughts. I simply was following BRD. I see above quite a bit of commentary about editors and not content. I didn't thank that was cool here, perhaps I am mistaken Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Khan Noonien_Singh 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. All editors that have engaged in talk page discussion have been listed, but were not notified on their talk pages by the filing party. I have notified Dbrodbeck, as Inzo has already responded here. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Naturopathy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Benders001 on 22:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Naturopathy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Benders001 (talk · contribs) NeilN (talk · contribs) McSly (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Many readers (myself included) feel the entire Naturopathy page is extremely biased. The page attacks the profession, rather than explaining it and letting the reader form a decision on their own. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Use of talk page and message on individual talk page belonging to author. How do you think we can help? Provide a mediator to help eliminate biased content and provide factual, but neutral information. Summary of dispute by NeilN Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by McSly Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Naturopathy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: The filing party has not notified the other parties on their talk pages. There doesn't appear to be very much recent discussion on the talk page. The specific content issue at hand is also not especially clear. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tigrayans

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sennaitgebremariam on 16:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Tigrayans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sennaitgebremariam (talk · contribs) Otakrem (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried with the page Talk: Tigrayans, with the help of other users, with reporting to Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents, with my personal page User talk: Sennaitgebremariam How do you think we can help? stopping Otakrem in ruining the work of others Summary of dispute by Otakrem Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Tigrayans discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - This is still not stated as a content dispute, but as a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Robert McClenon I've discussed with SennaitGebremariam but I also discussed with other editors namely Soupforone on the "Notable Persons" and I am following the Wikipedia rules of properly sourced Notable Person entries when I edit sections in Articles. I am not the only one removing improperly sourced "Notable Persons" in articles. You are more than welcome to view the articles of Amhara people, Tigrinyas, Tigrayans, etc.Otakrem (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Comment - I'm not sure what Otakrem's discussion with SennaitGebremariam over on the Tigrayans page is about. However, as regards my and CambridgeBayWeather's discussion with Otakrem vis-a-vis the Tigrinyas page, we advised him that per policy, the ethnic heritage had to be reliable and verifiable beforehand in the respective link-thrus. After some brief back and forth, Otakrem eventually got the hang of it, and it worked out well in the end [2]. Soupforone (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC) After I discussed with Soupforone on the Tigrinya article, I followed the same reasoning for the Tigrayan article. If I am following Wikipedia guidelines, I see nothing wrong here. That is why I recommended to Sennaitgebremariam to discuss with Soupforone so that an understanding of Wikipedia guidelines could become helpful to Sennaitgebremariam in future edits.Otakrem (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC) the references are there, not to spoil the work of others http://orvillejenkins.com/profiles/tigrinya.html http://www.ikuska.com/Africa/Etnologia/Pueblos/tigrinya/index.htm http://www.ethiopianorthodoxchurch.org/saint_yared.html http://www.st-gebriel.org/Styared/gab_yared_music.htm http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/kaleb2.html http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/periplus.asp https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/KingdomOfAksum_StudentsWorksheets.pdf http://worldcoincatalog.com/AC/C/Aksum/300-310CE-Aphilas/300-310CE-Aphilas.htm http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_ezana.html https://books.google.it/books?id=YTGRcVLMg6MC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Ouazebas+axum&source=bl&ots=qd0ji6e1Es&sig=jRzAKemdzj_pFW4v-dVhBWckEi4&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim4dPpi7LNAhXGDBoKHYBoCTs4ChDoAQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=Ouazebas%20axum&f=false Bibliography Tellez, The Travels of the Jesuits in Ethiopia, 1710 (LaVergue: Kessinger, 2010), pp. 89F. E. Bernard, AJ Drewes, and R. Schneider, Recueil des Inscriptions de l'Ethiopie périodes des pré-axoumite et axoumite. Volume I:. Les Inscriptions Paris: Diffusion de Boccard 1991, p. 247. Siegbert Uhlig (ed.) (2016). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, Volume 2 Eight Harrassowitz Verlag .. p. 211 S. C. Munro-Hay, Aksum: an African civilization Late Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, 1991), p. 91. letter to Antoine d'Abbadie, January 8, 1869 mentions a coin of this ruler. Sven Rubenson, Aethiopica Acta, vol 3: internal rivalries and external threats, from 1869 to 1879 (Addis Ababa: University Press, 2000), p. 3 See the article on ELLA Saham by Gianfranco Fiaccadori Aethiopica the Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 2016 ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes --tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Response to SennaitG Of all of your sources,which one of them claims that the Aksumite kings are "Tigrayans" or "Tigrinyas"?Otakrem (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC) can you read? is simple--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: This noticeboard focuses on content, not contributors. Please remain civil while discussing things here. Depending on what the content issue actually is, there may be more involved editors on the article talk page. The filing party should clarify what content issue is under discussion in the Dispute overview section. The other party should then make an opening statement. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - This noticeboard focuses on content issues only. Its purpose is to improve articles, not to complain about other editor. Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. The filing party has not yet made a concise statement of what the content issue is without mentioning another editor. If the filing party does not make a one-paragraph statement of what the content issue is, that does not mention other editors by name, it will be necessary to close this case again. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC) the problem is the restoration of paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigray people--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion before acceptance is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Otakrem's response SennaitG, the sources you cited on the Aksumite kings did not state that the said Kings were "Tigrayans" nor "Tigrinyas". Just as Ancient Romans were not Italians, nor are Ancient Aksumites identified as "Amhara", "Tigrinya", "Tigrayans"..(modern ethnic group) it just doesn't make sense. Ancient Babylonians are not Called Iraqis either. I think you can see the revisionist identification would make history questionable everytime a new group comes along and claims ownership of the ethnic identity of said ancient peoples.Otakrem (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC) source 1 1 1 1 read the article Ge'ez language All Axumite kings born in Tigray is the people Tigrayan and language is direct source for both the source Ge'ez language, most importantly the type of stone construction (Hudmo)1 of peasant dwellings, and the thousands churchs and rock hewn churches of Tigray in classic style Axumite and almost all of the practice of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of religion and most monumental archaeological treasures and inherits library stored in Tigray all bring back the Axumite period not retrievable in some parts Amhara and especially Oromo. The Tigray people live in Tigray for 3,000 years, and are direct descendants from the people of the kingdom of axum the axum became a Christian kingdom with King Ezana for Italy it is another matter passed a great variety of peoples in that region but that the Italian culture is predominantly Latin unlike other European peoples. the direct origin of the ancient Axumite was tigrayans with the rise to power of Menelik I first king of axum led to the creation in the first century the Axum Empire--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Look SennaitG, I am not trying to be unreasonable here. I argued with Soupforone to include living persons who are from Eritrea Tigrinya regions into the Notable Tigrinya section for Tigrinyas and Soupforone still deleted them. The criteria for living persons is so high and even for deceased persons like Aksumite kings. Why should the requirement be different for Aksumite kings? How are they Tigrayans simply because they were kings in a Axum, a town in Tigray? By that argument, one can call Ancient Egyptian Pharoah Ramses, a Muslim Arab simply because Muslim Arabs live in Egypt now.Otakrem (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Enough with this game--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party is requested, if this is a content dispute, to state concisely what the content dispute is, and to list all parties who have edited the article or its talk page within the past two weeks, not just one party. This thread will be closed within 24 hours unless a content dispute is clearly stated and all parties to the content dispute are listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC) the problem is the restoration of paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigray people for reasons I have already listed edited the article Otakrem, EthiopianHabesha, Soupforone, Richard0048--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yom Kippur

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Purrhaps on 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Yom Kippur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Purrhaps (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) MShabazz (talk · contribs) Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It's impossible that Yom Kippur = Day of Atonement from etymology. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk submissions at Yom Kippur & my Talk. How do you think we can help? Arbitration regarding etymology & literal meaning. Summary of dispute by Debresser Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Waiting to see if this thread will be opened. Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MShabazz I had asked Purrhaps several times for reliable sources that support her/his argument. This afternoon she/he finally provided some. I have not yet had a chance to review them in order to reply. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Actually I am a HE, & it was Sept 2 (on my Talk page) & asked you after that to comment. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC) As I wrote, I asked you for reliable sources. Strong's numbers by themselves are not a reliable source. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Odysseus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Doug Weller Not sure why I'm here as I haven't been involved in the article or the talk page. Ah, found it. I posted to his talk page. First a 3RR warning, then a mistaken comment suggesting he'd edited someone else's edit - this was due to interpolation problems. I also advised him about some of our policies and guidelines. And I removed some forum style comments of his from another talk page and dropped a notice on his page about use of talk pages. I see a new editor struggling with our policies and guidelines and convinced that they are right. And perhaps a bit confused, but that may be me as I find some of what he writes confusing. But again, I haven't been directly involved in the dispute. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Yom Kippur 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 recent discussion at the article talk page by some of the editors. The filing party has notified the other editors. I will note that the filing party asks DRN to arbitrate concerning the use and literal meaning of words. DRN moderators mediate; they do not arbitrate. Does the filing party want mediation, which will facilitate discussion and compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, please mediate. The following might be helpful to all participants. This dispute is like saying H1471 gowy (goy) literally means heathen or Gentile (no, it literally means a people, nation). -- Purrhaps (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) So what is the next step? -- 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC) The next step is to wait for a moderator to accept the case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by possible moderator I am willing to accept this case for moderated discussion. However, I want to be sure that I am acceptable as a moderator, because I am not Jewish. If anyone objects to having a non-Jewish moderator, please state the objection. (I don't know if we have a Jewish volunteer handy.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC) To me, the moderator's religion is of no importance. The issues involved in the dispute are related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not religion or "truth". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Extended comment I believe in the same One God revealed through the Hebrew Scriptures as most Jews do. Not sure how that is either relevant or helpful. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in this same deity, so it wouldn't help one way or the other as far as a perception of doctrinal bias is concerned, and the issue is about Wikipedia policies, not doctrine. Also, 'one' isn't a proper noun.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will moderate this case unless a Jewish volunteer accepts it. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts are not helpful and sometimes obscure the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article by compromise or by clarification, not to address any issue about the editors. Each editor should check on this case at least every 48 hours and reply to any questions within 24 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That has already been done on the talk page. Reply only to me and the community. Do not edit the article while discussion here is in progress. Commenting on the article at the article talk page may be ignored. Now: Will each editor state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is, without referring to other editors by name? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Reminder by moderator - Comment on content, not contributors. Comments referring to specific editors may be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Wrong place for this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Please add User:Jeffro77 to this discussion. He actively to part in the talkpage discussion recently (after this thread was opened). Debresser (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) No thanks. This dispute seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how words work, but there is also a deeper vein of underlying religious POV about how 'sins' are magicked away by deities. The English word 'atonement' has existed for centuries, and Wikipedia should accurately report how the word is used. The complainant starts off at Talk that the word 'atonement' 'couldn't have been been in the OT because it was invented later'. This is true of literally all English words. Also, the year asserted for the writing of Leviticus by the editor is not that agreed by scholars and reflects a religious superstition.) The editor wants to 'right a great (perceived) wrong' after his "use of atonement all [his] life, was changed this past January when [he] did research". The usage of atonement in English as it relates to the concepts in Judaism and Christianity is well established. Please note that I have said all I am going to say at this discussion, and am not interested in going round in circles repeating what I have already said, so please don't add me here for further discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors Debresser 1. The Hebrew root "כפר" has a basic meaning and derived meanings, like all words in any language. The filing editor insists that only the basic meaning should be used in translation, and that claim is not correct. 2. His argument that the word "to atone" doesn't appear in English till a certain year has no relevance since English as a language is much younger than Hebrew, and all words in English didn't appear till later. Likewise, Latin and Greek translations are not really relevant to the issue. Not to mention that at least one of the Latin translations supports "atonement". 3. What he proposes comes down to saying that "to cover a song" means to put another object on top of it, rather than another artist making their own second version of the song. Which is absurd. 4. His point of view is based on his personal research, as he has stated himself, and Wikipedia is not a blog for people's original research. 5. There are hardly any sources for the fringe point he pushes, and of those he provided most are not reliable. Take for example the link he provided to a blog, which in addition renders a 404 error. In any case, they can not outweigh the vast majority of sources that use the translation "atonement". 6. As I said on the talkpage, I still think that this version of the article expressed perfectly what the posting editor and his sources try to say, without ignoring it or giving it more weight than it deserves, and most importantly, and without adding all kinds of extraneous detail (regarding 1510 CE etc.). 7. In conclusion, I propose to either keep the present version, which doesn't include the translation proposed by the posting editor, or use my original compromise version from the above diff. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Jeffro This dispute seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how words work, but there is also a deeper vein of underlying religious POV about how 'sins' are magicked away by deities. The English word 'atonement' has existed for centuries, and Wikipedia should accurately report how the word is used. The complainant starts off at Talk that the word 'atonement' 'couldn't have been in the OT because it was invented later'. This is true of literally all English words. (Also, the year asserted for the writing of Leviticus by the editor is not that agreed by scholars and reflects a religious superstition.) The editor wants to 'right a great (perceived) wrong' after his "use of atonement all [his] life, was changed this past January when [he] did research". The usage of atonement in English as it relates to the concepts in Judaism and Christianity is well established. Please note that I have said all I am going to say at this discussion, and am not interested in going round in circles repeating what I have already said, so please don't add me here for further discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Comment: I responded to Debresser's request to have me added to this discussion, wherein I specifically requested that I didn't want to be involved further in this discussion. Someone else has then moved my comments into a new 'discussion' section. With the exception of possibly responding to any false comments made about me, I won't be involved in this dicussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Comment: Jeffro77 writes: (Also, the year asserted for the writing of Leviticus by the editor is not that agreed by scholars and reflects a religious superstition.) ~ Feel free to correct the following Wiki-scholarship. ~ http://thewikibible.pbworks.com/enwiki/w/page/22174951/LEVITICUS -- Purrhaps (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) The Wiki you cite is hardly a scholarly source. I see no need to correct that unimportant website. There are any number of websites devoted to promoting superstitious religious beliefs. Wikipedia is not one of them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry. I relied on Wiki-scholarship, apparently to everyone's detriment. Perhaps somebody should correct Wiki content on this date-error. -- Purrhaps (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) You seem confused about the distinction between a Wiki—any website that uses the Wiki engine—and Wikipedia, a specific Wiki run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with your chosen religiously oriented Wiki. Anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can set up 'a Wiki'. They can even run it from their own home server. The fact that something is on 'a Wiki' does not mean it has anything to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors have no inherent affiliation with other websites that happen to use the same type of database engine, and are in no way responsible for the content on such independent websites. Wikipedia rules do not apply to indepenent Wikis, and the people who run other Wikis can allow and endorse whatever content or community behaviours they like.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderator It appears, from picking apart the statements of the editors, that the issue is whether "Day of Atonement" is a correct translation of "Yom Kippur". If there are any other issues, please state what they are. If the issue is one of translation, do reliable sources state that "Day of Atonement" is a valid translation of "Yom Kippur"? If, as has been noted, "atonement" is a secondary or derived meaning of the Hebrew word, a valid compromise would be to provide a linguistic explanation. However, if reliable sources provide a translation, discounting the reliable sources because someone thinks that the translation is wrong would be original research. So: Is the real issue one of translation? If so, what do reliable sources say? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Isn't it a bit quick to go for a second round, with only 2 editors out of 8 who have replied so far in round one? I don't want to carry the sole burden of one of the two sides in this dispute, when there are another 6 editors who share my point of view, and who perhaps have more time to do research. I can speak as a rabbi, a person with intimate knowledge of Jewish traditions, but to provide sources for the knowledge I have gathered over decades is a serious job. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors StevenJ81 I've been following this during a Wikibreak. I enter into discussion my comments at Talk:Yom Kippur#General response, excluding the introduction where I offer an opinion about editor bias which is not relevant here. Use of "Day of Atonement" for "Yom Kippur" must be so widespread as to qualify as WP:BLUE. Even the sources that User:Purrhaps brings there mostly include the language "Day of Atonement", even if they then modify that language or suggest that "coverings" might be more accurate. If the moderator does not agree that "Day of Atonement" is the widely used translation for "Yom Kippur"—whether it should be or not—I suppose we could try to prove that. But I'm going to express a hunch here that Googling "Day of Atonement" and "Day of Covering(s)" won't even be remotely close. My response on the talk page also discussed the parallel use of the root K-P-R (the one in question here) with two other roots (S-L-KH and M-KH-L) in the liturgy of Yom Kippur. There are many, many examples of that. All these terms refer to atonement and forgiveness of some type or other, and I've never seen a suggestion that there is another meaning of either of the other two. I'll provide sources if you want, but again, they feel like "BLUE" to me. But here's just one, a Christian site quoting a rabbinical source. An argument can be made that "Atonement" (or "forgiveness", or something else related to that) is a derived use for K-P-R. I'm not sure that's categorically proved, but I think there is an argument there. But that derived use is the one that is the common use in this setting. Outside of an explicit discussion of etymology, calling this "covering" is just confusing, and doesn't capture the meaning that people commonly understand. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Purrhaps The issue is the etymology & literal meanings of words. Wiki shouldn't allow someone to write: "kippur" literally means "atonement", when it literally means "to cover" -- looking at the 4 related Hebrew words. The Greek Septuagint Pentateuch (282 BC) understood the Hebrew to = hemera exilasmou in Lev.23:27,28. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (405 AD) understood the Hebrew to = dies expiationum in Lev.23:27, & dies propitiationis in Lev.23:28. These languages pre-date & supersede English-Atonement. -- Purrhaps (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Malik Shabazz I cannot continue this dispute resolution if the complainant cannot or will not read and understand such basic and core Wikipedia concepts as WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral point of view (particularly WP:UNDUE). Without those necessary fundamentals, we're speaking English and he's speaking Martian. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Debresser Like Malik, I see one editor going against everybody and everything and view this thread as forumshopping. I repeat my my first statement. Just want to add that "dies expiationum" is translated "day of attonement",[3] and rightfully so.[4] Debresser (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator The first question is: Do reliable sources state that 'Yom Kippur' means 'Day of Atonement'? I am not asking whether that is the original primary meaning of the Hebrew, since words may have primary and secondary meanings, but whether reliable sources state that 'Yom Kippur' means 'Day of Atonement'. What is written in Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources. (The RS and OR policies are not negotiable and do not require compromise or dispute resolution.) The second question is: Would a compromise, in which a discussion of the history of the Hebrew word is provided, be acceptable? The third question is: Does the article currently state that 'atonement' is the literal meaning of 'Kippur', or only that it is the meaning in context of the name of the day? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I will note that I am doing my best to be a neutral moderator, but I don't see what the filing party's argument is based on what has been said so far. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Purrhaps Yom Kippur article currently states: Yom means "day" in Hebrew and Kippur comes from a root that means "to atone", which is related to the biblical name of the covering of the Ark (called the kapporet) Erev Yom Kippur (lit. "eve [of] day [of] atonement") is the day preceding Yom Kippur. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors Purrhaps Let me quote "GeneralizationsAreBad" ~ "About ~ I want to improve Wikipedia's much-maligned reputation, and transform it into a credible, respected source of research and news information, free from bias and editorializing. I am indeed opinionated, but also a strong believer in objective, judicious, and rigorous writing. I understand the importance of maintaining and improving existing content, as well as creating new content." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeneralizationsAreBad == Purrhaps (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Lev.23:28 CEB ~ it is a Day of Reconciliation to make reconciliation CJB ~ it is Yom-Kippur CEV ~ it is the Great Day of Forgiveness DRA ~ it is a day of propitiation EXB ~ it is the Day of Cleansing GNV ~ it is a day of reconciliation GW ~ It is a special day for the payment for sins GNT ~ it is the day for performing the ritual to take away sin ICB ~ it is the Day of Cleansing JUB ~ it is a day of reconciliations NOG ~ It is a special day for the payment for sins NCV ~ it is the Day of Cleansing NIRV ~ It is the day when sin is paid for NLV ~ it is a day to be made free from sin OJB ~ it is Yom Kippurim TLV ~ it is Yom Kippur WYC ~ it is the day of cleansing *YLT ~ it is a day of atonements (note the plural) *http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Yom-Kippur.html#.V9kqJq3UaGw ~ The name Yom Kippur doesn't really occur in the Bible, but rather Yom Kippurim (or even Yom Hakippurim). And as such it occurs only three times, namely in Leviticus 23:27 and 25:9 as ...yom hakippurim and in Leviticus 23:28 as ...yom kippurim -- Purrhaps (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Latin Vulgate (405 CE) Lev.23:27 = dies expiationum (literally Day of Expiations) Lev.23:28 = dies propitiationis (literally Day of Propitiation) -- Purrhaps (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Debresser To answer the questions asked by the moderator: 'Day of Atonement' is the standard translation of 'Yom Kippur' in reliable sources. Such a compromise would be acceptable to me only if the treatment were proportionate to its due weight, by which I mean very short. Like in the edit I proposed by way of compromise.[5] See the short Etymology paragraph. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator One of the statements above is simply a platitude about the importance of objectivity, but objectivity means the use of reliable sources. They haven't given a reason that is consistent with Wikipedia policies for ignoring what reliable sources say. As I noted above, I am trying very hard to be a neutral moderator, but I am not permitted to be neutral about the reliable source policy and the original research policy. If reliable sources translate 'Yom Kippur' as 'Day of Atonement', Wikipedia should state that reliable sources translate it as 'Day of Atonement'. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Does anyone have a reliable source that provides some other translation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) If there is no dispute that is consistent with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and original research, this thread will have to be closed, with advice that any further disagreements can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) When I said that back-and-forth discussion was not permitted, I meant that back-and-forth discussion was not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I never read that part sorry. As previously noted, I didn't want to be involved in this discussion, and my comments were moved into another section despite that. If I am not addressed by other editors, I won't be involved in the discussion, as it's just a continuous circular argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors Sm8900 I agree with Debresser above. namely, the title "Day of Atonement." is the commonly accepted English name of the holiday of Yom Kippur. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Purrhaps I have no issues with wording such as: commonly accepted, also known as, widely known as. That is much different when the subject is etymology, or the literal meaning. And it is a Day of Plurals. A list of alternate English translations is shown in Statement 3. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Serena Williams#Battle_of_the_Sexes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Thad caldwell on 01:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Serena Williams#Battle of the Sexes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Thad caldwell (talk · contribs) Svrodgers (talk · contribs) Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The "Battle of the Sexes" on Serena Williams article is being disputed as it seems biased, inaccurate, and unnecessary to most users save a couple. This section has been discussed for a while now though a bot has removed majority of the conversation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The topic was talked about on the talk page and all but one (Fyunck(click)) wanted it removed as it is somewhat inaccurate and unnecessary. A RFC was suggested, however according to the Wikipedia help page this step seemed more appropriate. How do you think we can help? Please review the section and conversation as we've reached an impasse. Does this section meet Wiki's BLP policies? Please suggest ways in which a consensus can be reached. Summary of dispute by Svrodgers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Fyunck(click) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Serena Williams#Battle_of_the_Sexes 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. Some of the editors who have taken part in the discussion are not listed above. The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing here. Leaving this thread pending to allow the filing party to add other editors and to notify the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Hello, I noted that I posted a DR in the talk section. I only listed the members who are on the most recent thread. Should I also list the members who were in the discussion in the previous thread? Also, do I contact them individually? TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party has listed the editors who took part in the most recent thread. The filing party should also list themselves, and should notify the other editors on their talk pages. A template is available for the purpose, but its use is optional; any talk page message that is clear is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Where can I find the template? TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The template is {{subst:DRN-notice}}, but any talk page message is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - This thread will be closed due to lack of notice in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you Robert. The conversation has resumed on the talk page so feel free to close this dispute. I will file another if the dialogue breaks down. Thank you for your assistance and patience! 208.58.4.22 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.