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 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 |
| Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov | Closed | Trumpetrep (t) | 14 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours |
| Breyers | New | Zefr (t) | 8 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 8 hours | Axad12 (t) | 1 days, 1 hours |
| Dragon Age: The Veilguard | New | Sariel Xilo (t) | 6 days, 9 hours | None | n/a | Wikibenboy94 (t) | 5 days, 10 hours |
| AIM-174B | Closed | MWFwiki (t) | 5 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 3 hours |
| List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru | New | HundenvonPenang (t) | 1 days, 21 hours | None | n/a | HundenvonPenang (t) | 1 days, 21 hours |
| Ustad Ahmad_Lahori | New | Goshua55 (t) | 15 hours | None | n/a | Drmies (t) | 9 hours |
| Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects | New | Rusted AutoParts (t) | 2 hours | None | n/a | Rusted AutoParts (t) | 2 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 03:46, 12 December 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
Nivkh alphabets
– Discussion in progress.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
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
Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
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)
- 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)
First statement by moderator (Nivkh)
Thank you for stating what the content issues are. On the one hand, the statements are not concise. I requested concise statements, but I recognize that that may be difficult. So I have a two-part follow-up request. First, please indicate the sections and paragraphs of the article that you want your changes made to. Second, please see whether you can make your statement of what you want to change more concise. If what you have provided is the most concise possible summary, because the issues are complicated, at least it will help to see what paragraphs are being discussed. A third question is whether either editor has questions about the reliability of a source. If so, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for an opinion on the source.
Are there any other content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
First statements by Kwami (Nivkh)
These are the edits I would like reversed.
Section: Cyrillic alphabet
- In the table, give both variants of the hooked letters, namely ticked Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and curved Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ.
- In the table, change deprecated curly quotation marks to the proper apostrophe letter ⟨ʼ⟩.
- [not in diff] Below the table, change "Hooked variants of the letters" to "Rounded variants of the letters", since they're all arguably hooked.
Section: Alphabet Correspondence Table
- Give both letter variants as above. This only affects cells in the left column, though some of those cells span 2 columns.
- This time we're changing ASCII apostrophes to ⟨ʼ⟩. This should be done to all Cyrillic alphabets.
- For the Latin alphabet in the right column, the apostrophe should be the spiritus asper ⟨ʻ⟩. For example, the 'k' row should be: Кʼ кʼ | Къ къ | Kʻ kʻ.
- [not in diff] Provide a reference for "a 1970 dictionary".
- Change ⟨ɧ⟩ to "(approximately ɧ)" or similar, since ɧ is a Latin letter, not Cyrillic. The Cyrillic letter is not supported by Unicode, and so can only be approximated. It might instead be replaced by an SVG of both capital and lower case.
- Change Latin ⟨ⱨ⟩ back to Cyrillic ⟨Ԧ ԧ⟩.
- ADDENDUM: Given that the only Nivx newspaper agrees with the UNDHR in using er-breve rather than er-caron, I would like that added to the alphabet tables.
- ADDENDUM: Remove the letter Ў from the tables, unless we have a RS for it, as it isn't in the current alphabet laid out in Janhunen & Gruzdeva (2016) Bringing the orthography of an indigenous language to the digital age: The case of Nivkh in the Russian Far East. Proceedings of the SCRIPTA 2016, Seoul.
— kwami (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
First statements by Modun (Nivkh)
Section: Cyrillic alphabet
- There's just one thing I want to change. Cancel the part that says that the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable. Not a single textbook says that these letters are interchangeable. I believe that in this regard, we should separately examine why other letters are used in practice. And simply bring it into line with the source that has already been cited.
- Supplement with two variants of alphabets for different idioms/dialects (depending on the periods when they were adopted separately).
Otherwise, there are no global disagreements.--Modun (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Nivkh)
It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters. (By the way, do each of those lists of eight letters consist of four upper case letters and four lower case letters?) Is that the main issue? If so, what sources do you have to that effect about these groups of letters (that they are allographs, or that they are different)? Is the question about the reliability of sources, or interpretation of the sources, or are you using different sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by Kwami (Nivkh)
Yes, those are 4 letters, each in capital and lower case, and each in two allographic variants.
Yes, IMO too this is a matter of RSs. There are RSs to support my argument, and AFAIK there are no contrary RSs. At least, none have been presented so far. If Modun can produce RSs, then we would have a conflict of sources; so far AFAICT we do not.
First, there is a series of threads on the Unicode discussion board about these specific letters. Participants include linguists who specialize in the Siberian languages that use them. An example is here: L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280).
There are multiple experts in those discussions who say that these are allographs, the only dispute being whether they are completely interchangeable or whether one variant is to be preferred. It would be like people arguing over whether double-loop 'g' or script 'ɡ' is correct for English: double-loop 'g' is more common, but some publishers prefer script 'ɡ', and that's what's generally used for literacy material. Even if people strongly prefer one over the other, both are found.
We've had an argument that Unicode and the linguists participating in those discussions are irrelevant. The debate is relevant to Unicode because Unicode doesn't normally encode allographs. The consensus now is that it was a mistake to encode the rounded letters Ӄ ӄ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ. They should only have encoded Қ қ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and left it to the font to handle the letter forms, just as publishers who prefer script 'ɡ' for English typeset it as the regular ASCII 'g' and choose a font that displays it the way they like. Unicode has decided therefore that they will not encode any more of these letters and make a bad situation worse. The situation is bad because words can now be encoded multiple different ways with no difference in meaning. A search engine therefore has to treat Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ as being the same 3 letters as Қ Ң Ҳ or people won't be able to reliably seach in texts or online. Search engines do not always accommodate the idiosyncrasies of small languages, so this can be a problem.
Modun objects that that Unicode source does not address Nivx specifically. However, these letters were created in the 1930s for all of the languages of Siberia, which until then had been written in Latin. Nivx was just one of many, and the same publisher's typefaces are used for all of them. If Nivx were different from the others in this regard, it could be used as an argument for encoding these letters. However, according to sources, none of the languages that use these letters make a distinction between their different forms.
The ref above describes how a single textbook publishing house, Prosveschenie ('Enlightenment' or 'Education'), created an in-house typeface that had rounded forms of these letters. There are no other differences -- that is, these aren't new alphabets. Prosveschenie was highly influential, and their textbooks are how many speakers of these languages learned to read. Therefore there is an idea among some speakers that the rounded Prosveschenie letters are the correct forms. However, Russian government ministries continue to use the original ticked forms. For example, here is the UN Declaration of Human Rights in Nivx and Russian. As you can see, they use the ticked allographs in the title of the doc and throughout the text. The fact that it's the modern alphabet is shown both by the date (2014) and by the fact that it uses all of the new letters that were introduced to the Nivx alphabet in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў (thanks to Modun for pointing out that orthographic revision). Again, these new letters appear in both the title and the text.
What we have therefore is a recent, official Nivx text (the official Nivx translation of the UNDHR) that uses the modern orthography with the ticked allographs of these letters, as well as statements by linguists working on the languages of Siberia that a single influential publishing house created the rounded forms, and that the difference is allographic.
— kwami (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I won't reply directly to Modun below, per instructions, but would like to point out one factual error. They say Sami 'distinguishes between the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң".' It does not: The Sami alphabet does not have both Ӈ and Ң in its alphabet. Agreed, the Ң form would be easily confused with another letter Sami does have, but Sami (not a Siberian language) does not use the set of letters that the Siberian orthographies are based on. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by Modun (Nivkh)
The Declaration of Human Rights in the Nivkh language, to which my opponent refers, was translated and published not by the Russian government, but by some third-party private organizations. For example, the said declaration was published by a non-governmental printing house with the financial support of "Sakhalin Energy Investment Company LTD", the state did not invest a kopeyka in the publication of this translation of the document.
Secondly, there are also some questions about the quality of such translations. Here is an example of how such publishers released translations: altay, even, shor. Some were published with an unknown version of the alphabet in the corresponding languages, or with a broken encoding. (And this, by the way, is now attached to the UN website)
As for the "common alphabet projects" of the 1930s, in specific languages they may differ from the common projects, since in specific languages the projects are adjusted to the orthography of their language. For example, the alphabets of the languages of the peoples of the Caucasus differ greatly from the "Yanalif" project (new script). In addition, they were published by the Ucpedgiz (Учпедгиз, Uchpedgiz) publishing house, which is the same Prosveshchenie (Просвещение) that my opponent criticizes for allegedly "imposing" its version of letters. But this company is a state publishing house.
Thirdly, there is no more evidence (at least for some reason it has not been additionally presented, which I asked for) that the indicated letters are "allographs". All modern educational materials on the Nivkh language consistently adhere to one version of the alphabet. Sociolinguists monitoring the state of this language also provide this version of the alphabet on their website. Unfortunately, due to inconsistent policy, we now have a situation where for some languages the alphabetic base and composition of letters have changed quite often. For example, in Sámi, the alphabet has changed quite often over the past hundred years. And it also distinguishes between the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң", otherwise it would cause confusion because of the other letter "Ӊ".The source my opponent refers to is simply a working correspondence within UNICODE. It does not consider specific situations, "how acceptable is such a replacement?" (In my example with the Kildin Sámi language) Therefore, I believe that some additional sources are needed to confirm that such a replacement is specifically acceptable in the Nivkh language. Perhaps native speakers simply do not see the difference because they are not specialists in this field and simply proceed from the real situation of their language.--Modun (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- And the territorial feature has nothing to do with it, the spelling was not initially adopted based on the territorial feature. It was adopted for the so-called conditionally peoples of the North (Arctic) (Unified Northern Alphabet). So the criterion is not the peoples' residence in Siberia.
- Secondly, you know very well that in the Kildin Sámi language letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered allographs. And if this is so, then where is the guarantee that it is not the same in other languages. That is why I ask you to provide an additional source that specifically in the Nivkh language these letters are supposedly considered allographs. But why do you have only one source available? Other sources point only to indirect signs
- Thirdly, with your answer you have already deviated from the instructions. Modun (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Nivkh)
I stated what I thought was the issue, and it is:
- It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters.
It appears that that is the issue. It further appears that one editor has a source, which is a translation from the Russian original, and the other editor questions the reliability of the translation. Is that a correct statement of the underlying issue? If so, I am asking each editor to identify any source that they are relying on, and for each editor to identify any source that they are challenging. I am asking for each editor to supply details of the sources, so that we can request the reliable source noticeboard to provide an opinion on source reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
There are multiple statements, by linguists who work on Siberian languages that use these letters, that the two sets are allographs. An example follows, with statements/quotations from two such linguists:
L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280).
I can dig up other threads that say basically the same thing.
There are also recent publications that use the 'ticked' forms of the letters for Nivx, such as mining concessions in Sakhalin. Here is the UNDHR from 2014, using the modern alphabet:
UN Declaration of Human Rights (bilingual in Nivx and Russian).
I don't know that Modun challenges the translation itself, just the use of these allographs for Nivx.
I don't think I have anything to challenge. Modun has presented several Nivx texts that use the rounded allographs. However, no-one disputes that those forms are very commonly used. The crux of the matter is that they're equivalent, even if some publishers prefer one over the other. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I just contacted a Russian scholar of Nivx, and they confirmed that these letters "are just allographs." They haven't written about this and doesn't know of anyone who has, but that's now at least 3 linguists who say they're allographs, against zero contrary evidence provided by Modun. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
P.P.S. I just heard back from a Finnish linguist who said that "Nivkh is indeed no different from other Northern Eurasian minority languages" in that Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "allographs" of Қ Ң Ҳ etc. They said that the Unicode characters Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "unnecessary" and that Қ Ң Ҳ etc. should be used instead, or at a minimum that search engines should treat them as the same. He copied an email from a colleague of his:
- it was probably a mistake to include different kinds of "descenders", "hooks" and "tails" in the Unicode standard in the first place. It might have been wiser to leave the choice of the descender form to font designers. If you look, for example, at materials published in Nivkh, you will find that they have used fonts with three different types of descenders: 1) j-descender attached directly to the vertical element, 2) j-descender attached to the serif or right side of the vertical element, 3) the standard Russian c/shch-descender.
They attached a photo of the Нивх диф ("Nivx Language") newspaper, which uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. Rather than me uploading to Commons, you can check out the newspaper here. As you can see, they continue to use the Қ Ң Ҳ forms, at least as of 2023. I think that settles it, if the Nivx newspaper uses those allographs. (It also confirms the use of a breve rather than a caron over the ar, a variant that can be seen in the UNDHR.) — kwami (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by Modun (Nivkh)
Please understand, I try to comment on the content and point out the shortcomings of the sources provided by user Kwamikagami. This is not against the rules we agreed to.
While I have presented as an example several sources from various educational materials to sociolinguistic data (russian-nivkh nivkh-russian dictionary, nivkh farytail "Faithful Urgun", Stories from the Bible in Nivkh and Russian languages 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6 etc) using consistently one variant of the alphabet without indicating any "allographs", another opponent asks why only one source is presented.
Kwamikagami cited a source L2/23-015 where, according to his interpretation, in languages where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. Kwamikagami cited a source where, according to his interpretation, in languages where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. However, Kwamikagami is a little disingenuous, in that the letter "Ӈ" does not exist in Kildin Sámi language, moreover, in this language the above-mentioned letters are deliberately distinguished as different, i.e. not being allographs of each other. And yes, this source does not address the question of whether these letters are allographs in the Nivkh language.
Moreover, the source dates back to December 2022, and the declaration of human rights in the Nivkh language to which it refers dates back to 2014 (the earliest version is from 2012), i.e. retroactively declares that the letters used are "allographs". As for the quality of the translation of the declarations, my example shows how other translations either use an unknown alphabet (Altai translation), or a translation with a broken encoding, and then how correct is the Nivkh translation of the declaration of human rights in the alphabet? And how correct is it to refer to it then?
Kwamikagami does not answer the question of why speakers had to move away from one version of the alphabet. That's a different question.--Modun (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
P.s. Excuse me, what?! Is there any link to these linguists? Or is this another WP:TRUTH? Without a source, this is just an empty statement, and without any resources and references, it is impossible to continue working in Wikipedia!--Modun (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
P.s.s. My question is, why are native speakers taught to write in one version of the alphabet, but in the end, for some reason, in practice they use another version of the alphabet "with allographs"? Why can't you just attach another confirming source, where it is clearly stated that in a specific language (in this case, Nivkh), both letter versions are "allographs"? Why are you leading another discussion outside the moderated discussion, which you can't even cite as a source? Sorry, neither the moderator of the discussion nor I simply know the subject of your discussion. And besides, why are you referring to only one linguist's opinion?--Modun (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
Since both editors have made relatively long statements, I will have to ask a question. Is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [2] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages? So my question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research?
One of the editors refers to conversations with linguists. Those conversations have no reliability for Wikipedia because they are not verifiable unless the linguists can identify publications, either by themselves or by other scholars, that state what they have said.
One of the editors has made a long statement that asks various questions. Are they offering a source? Are they contesting the reliability of the document mentioned above?
Are there any other source questions, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
The single Nivx newspaper uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. That establishes that they're used for Nivx.
Modun claims that they create different alphabets, but has not presented a single source to support that claim.
We have a linguist working on Siberian languages, Tapani Salminen, stating that "the WITH HOOK characters represent allographs created by the «Просвещение» (“Enlightenment”, later «Дрофа») publishing house, [...] and search engines in particular should start treating them correctly as variants of the same characters."
This is for the letters themselves, for all languages.
A second, Rustam Yusupov, says, "Practically, people in Russia don't make a difference between hooks and descenders."
Again, in Russia, not with any particular language.
(The third, Arzhana Surun, applies this specifically to Tofalar.)
I checked with other specialists to be sure, but above we have 2 linguists saying they're allographs, and the one-and-only Nivx newspaper using the forms that Modun says aren't used. That debunks their claims, and is not contradicted by anything they present. — kwami (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
In my opinion, Kwamikagami has provided insufficient evidence to conclude that the letters in question are simply allographs of each other. For example, in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs.
In general, in the formulation in which Kwamikagami wrote it is OR. I would simply change it a little. I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets.
As for Rustam Yusupov's comment, I dare to assume that he meant that native speakers simply do not see the difference in practice which version of the letter to use for reading and writing. Replacing these letters with other versions, say, with Latin versions, I do not think that in practice they would see much of a difference either.
We still have not figured out why native speakers learned on one version of the alphabet, but in practice have to use another? In general, I will not repeat myself, initially I would simply change the wording.
P.S. At least write my nickname correctly!--Modun (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
Neither editor has exactly answered my questions. So I will restate them, almost exactly as I did.
First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [3] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one more question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages. So my second question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research?
User:Kwamikagami writes: We have a linguist working on Siberian languages, Tapani Salminen
. Who is "we"?
Does User:Modun have any sources that they want to use?
Are there any other source questions? Does either editor want to make any other changes to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
For the first question, durably archived statements by experts in the field count as RS. As for the second, it isn't about other Siberian languages but about Siberian languages in general. A few are mentioned specifically, but the allography is not language-dependent.
'We' is us here.
Modun writes, 'in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs.' That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question.
Modun asks, 'I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets.' Simple: they have provided zero evidence that Nivx currently has two alphabets. That would be not just OR, but contrary to sources.
— kwami (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
As for the first source, in my opinion it is not precise enough to draw any conclusions. For example, in it Mr Yusupov, to whom Kwamikagami refers, emphasizes (I quote verbatim) "Technically, the use of ң is wrong.", which Tapani Salminen ignores. In my opinion, if we accept this link as a source, then we should use an additional clarifying source that in a specific spelling of a language such a replacement is acceptable, as you found out in the example of the Kildin Sámi language. Otherwise it will be OR.
There are no other sources except those presented. There are no more questions except for the above, and there are more questions except for correcting the wording in the paragraph. The wording is something like: "In addition to the alphabet used in the textbooks, native speakers use an alternative alphabet with the following letters ..." Or something like that.
P.S. "That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question." Well, that is, in other words, they are not considered as allographs.--Modun (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
Neither editor has yet exactly answered my first question. So I will restate it, almost exactly as I did.
First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [4] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? The question appears to be whether this source is reliable in saying that the letters are allographs.
Maybe I don't understand the terminology, and I know that I don't know the Cyrillic alphabet(s), but I have some questions that might or might not be applicable. So my second question is for each of the editors to explain to me exactly what they mean by allographs.
As a minor point, Kwamikagami writes: For the first question, durably archived statements by experts in the field count as RS.
. That is true, but that depends on how they have been archived. Reports by editors of comments by experts do not count as reliable sources. More precisely, they do not count as verifiable sources. Reports in newspapers, journals, or other reliable media of comments by experts do count as reliable sources. I was disputing what appeared to be their reports of conversations with experts.
I will also ask, perhaps because I don't have a background in the subject matter, what is meant by an alternative alphabet. Modun proposes wording such as:
In addition to the alphabet used in the textbooks, native speakers use an alternative alphabet with the following letters
. If there is an alternative alphabet, with the same number of letters as the primary alphabet, and most of the letters are the same in the two alphabets, but four of them are different, aren't the letters in the two alternative alphabets allographs? Are the letters with the hooks and the letters with the descenders, if those are how the letters differ, used in the same words, or in different words? Do the different letters represent different phonemes? Can both of two variant letters be used in the same word or sentence with a different meaning (in which case they are not alternative letters but more letters)? Are there any rules for when one variant letter is used or when the other one is used? Maybe these are ignorant questions, but the "alternative alphabet" argument sounds to me as though the letters in the different versions of the alphabet are allographs.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)
The real issue for me is the lack of any source for Modun's claim that these are two different alphabets.
The expert's words are not based on a non-expert's recall. These are not reports of oral conversation, they are the actual words of the experts writing in, in their responses to other experts and copied and pasted from their emails. There's no more change involved than there would be with an author communicating with any other editor or publisher, where it's normal practice to write in and have them copy from your emails.
Yes, that would make them allographs. No, they are not used differently, nor in different words. The orthography is exactly the same, regardless of which forms are used, and can be handled by changing the font, as one linguist commented. The situation is analogous to using script (primer-style) 'a' and 'g' in English: you wouldn't claim that created an 'alternative English alphabet', and you wouldn't use the dedicated IPA letters for them, you'd just choose a font that styled ASCII 'a' and 'g' that way. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statement by Modun (Nivkh)
Lydham Hall
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as abandoned by filing editor. The filing editor has not responded in 48 hours to the moderator's request to state what changes they want to make to the article. The filing editor has not edited in three days, so the filing editor wasted their time, that of the moderator, and that of the other editor by filing and not following up. Making requests for reliable sources is standard practice in Wikipedia. Discussion of changes to the article should be on the article talk page; that's what it's for. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Wudu
– New discussion.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
On June 25, 2024 Abo Yemen deleted content from article Wudu. The content has been there since before February 2, 2016. Since February 2, 2016 there have been approximately 500 edits from multiple users and the content has remained.
I have tried to add back this content and Abo Yemen keeps reverting. Note i have been thanked by user Phefeni for adding the old content back.
Abo Yemen view is as below these are references, not text that should be part of the main article. Plus most of them are redundant and really.. useless since there are other sources already. Ill try to include them if it's needed tho dont worry I dont see how including all the views of the 5 scholars is needed. Only one is enough adding useless info before 8 years doesn't make it credible. this article survived on wikipedia for 10 years but that doesn't make it real.
My view is as below The reason you we should include the 5 scholars is to show transparency and the reference to reliable publications support the content that Wikipedia contains so readers can verify the facts at source. The article needs to distinguish clearly between the translation of wiping and washing the feet which has been translated by famous scholars noted with links Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali. All these scholars have wiki pages associated to them.
I have clearly identified the item that needs to be restored on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Wudu#Restoration_of_an_old_version_of_the_article
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
the removed content too be added back and protect this part of the content from future attack's.
Summary of dispute by Abo_Yemen
Starting on 14:09, 16 June 2024 I have started doing some copy-edits to the wudu article with the goal of trying to promote the article to GA class by removing every useless, uninformative, and un-encyclopedic stuff in order to make the article more useful and readable.
Now Nasserb786, who as he claims wants to add the names of translators of the quran for some reason (which is based on his original research btw instead of adding sources), kept on reverting the article to this version that he have wrote back in 2016 (and this version is the one where he added the name of the 5th translator) instead of actually adding the part that he claimed that he wanted to add to the article and did so by edit warring by reverting the article to his 2016 edit and after reverting his edits he started using my talkpage for discussing his restoration of the old and bad version of the article 3 times [5] [6] [7] with each time i've told him to discuss his edits on the article's talk page.
The rest of the "dispute" happened on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article Abo Yemen✉ 13:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Wudu discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Abo Yemen does not want me to use his talk page and rather use the talk page under the article. Nasserb786 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- that is not a reason to start a dispute resolution. If you want to start a discussion in a user talkpage then it should be in yours and not mine Abo Yemen✉ 16:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note Abo Yemen has been notified on the wudu talk page. Nasserb786 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Benevolent dictatorship
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as not a topic for DRN. As a minor point, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. If that were the only problem, I would tell the filing editor to notify the other editor. Sometimes there really is no consensus about a question in Wikipedia, and there is no consensus, at least on the general question of whether examples may be listed. Maybe the filer wants the closer to provide binding guidance in the absence of any guidance from the community. That won't happen. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Maybe the filer wants a different close to the RFC. The filer can appeal the close by requesting a close review at WP:AN. I don't recommend that, because the response to the RFC looks like No Consensus to me. I would have closed it as No Consensus, and I will Endorse the close if it is appealed. However, the filer has the right to request a close review. Maybe the filer wants non-binding advice about when examples may be given. I am willing to provide that advice. Since there was no consensus in general, any specific examples with attribution to historians should be discussed on the article talk page. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, then an RFC on specific examples with specific sources would provide binding guidance. It would be a good idea to discuss multiple proposed examples so that the RFC can ask about multiple people rather than having multiple RFCs. That is the guidance that I will provide. If the filing editor wants something else, they should explain what it is that they want. Either request closure review at WP:AN, which I do not recommend, or discuss specific examples at Talk:Benevolent dictatorship, which I do recommend. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Super Bowl_III
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. The discussion on the article talk page has not continued for 24 hours. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. Also, the filing editor is strongly advised to register an account. Their IP address is not static, and will change during continued discussion, which is excessively difficult to moderate. I know that many IP editors often think that their IP address is static, but I also know that Comcast, like most US ISPs, manages dynamic IP addresses. Please resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Battle of_al-Qadisiyyah
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as already pending at ANI. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Queen of Sheba
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as pending in another forum. The other editor has filed as sockpuppet investigation against the filing editor. Wait for the resolution of the sockpuppet investigation. If the filing editor is exonerated, they may file a new DRN request here, and must give proper notice to the other editor on their user talk page. Since the filing editor is blocked from both the article page and the article talk page, it will be understood that this will be a last chance, as well as an opportunity to demonstrate that they may be ready to be unblocked from the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dog fashion
– New discussion.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
Myself and two other users, Belbury and Medlawar, are having a dispute over whether or not a specific image of a dog wearing a baseball cap should be included on Dog fashion. Belbury's and my arguments are that there's already an image on the article showing a dog with a hat, as well as a meme going around showing the image with a worse caption, causing people to come to the article every so often to change the caption to that. Medlawar's argument is that they like the image a lot and have been keeping it on the article for over a year. I wasn't going to go to an outside source for this until Medlawar wrote a large text wall over several replies about God and stuff. I haven't read it since it's clearly super unrelated, but the fact that they even bothered to write it at all shows that they are not going to give up on this, and if I don't try to put an end to this dispute, it could easily turn into an edit war. Apologies if this is not the right place to put this or if I'm not being civil enough, I just don't want this to continue.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I don't know. I just want this dispute to end.
Summary of dispute by Medlawar
It's all so futile, there is no meaning anymore. mid september it all came crashing down, it all comes crashing down. there is nothing beyond this. the image must be reinstated PLEASE PELASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GIVE ME IR BACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medlawar (talk • contribs) 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Belbury
Dog fashon discussion
Talk:Thunderball (novel)
– New discussion.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
See the "talk" page linked to the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Thunderball (novel)#Edition War September 30, 2004
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
It goes nowhere. Just want an arbitration to know who is right and who is wrong: and more importanly why.