This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
Closed as not followed up by one editor. Wahreit has not responded to my request to state what they think the article content issues are, because they have not edited in September 2024. They appear to have taken a wikibreak, which is their right. The other editor may edit the article, being ready to discuss their edits on the article talk page. If either the other editor or another editor objects to their edits, they should discuss on the article talk page, and may file another request for dispute resolution here, if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. Edit the article, and be ready to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article originally said since 2005 that the IJA 3rd Division was engaged in the battle with no source. Japanese sources including official war monographs and contemporary military reports disproved this, noting the IJA 3rd Division and its subordinate forces were already outside Shanghai where the battle occurred.
Article was updated around 2022 to reflect correct participating Japanese forces but user has been continually re-adding disproven force due to assumed "consensus." Almost all of their sources used to assert this are unable to verify the claim of IJA 3rd Division's involvement. There has only been one source where I could not check the cited work to verify.
Main and one of the oldest sources used is Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo" article (which has no citations) published in December 2007. Niderost's article appears to have re-worded the false and at the time un-cited claim of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement from the 9 Aug 2007 or later revision of the wiki article:
"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."
Niderost, Dec 2007
"The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."
07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article.
This seems to be a case of citogenesis given the works cited to assert IJA 3rd Division's involvement all came after the IJA 3rd Division's inclusion in the wiki article in 2005 and some such as Stephen Robinson's 800 Heroes also cite Niderost's extremely suspicious article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Citogenesis or not, low quality articles and publications such as the writeup from Niderost which cannot verify their claims should not be given equal weight to Japanese war monographs and contemporary military reports. It is evident the IJA 3rd Division was not involved and as such should not be credited as participating on the article. Niderost's article and others with the false claim of the IJA 3rd Divisions involvement should be marked as unreliable sources.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page, but none within the past three weeks. Resume discussion on the article talk page to see if agreement can be reached. I will leave this case request alone for 48 hours for resumed discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sihang Warehouse)
Do the editors want moderated discussion? Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you want moderated discussion in accordance with these rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is the same as the purpose of discussion on an article talk page, which is to improve the content of the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I would greatly appreciate a moderated discussion in accordance with the rules.
My hope is to undo the recent changes by @Wahreit to the Japanese OOB as their sources not only contradict all of the Japanese-language reference material on the subject presented so far but also appear to be of questionable quality (web articles without citations etc). Adachi1939 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i would appreciate a moderated discussion too. what i want to maintain is an unbiased balanced weight across sources without original research in line with wikipedia's policies. i have taken the advice of other editors in delivering a fair representation of all sources at hand, including Japanese-language materials. i do not want an entire perspective of the battle eliminated because editor @Adachi1939 has personal grievances with the sources at hand (published peer-reviewed books, theses by military institutions). Wahreit (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your summary or follow-up could you please indicate (with a source) which of the works you've presented are peer-reviewed? A work being published does not necessarily mean it underwent the peer-review process. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Be Specific at DRN. Then please be specific in one of two ways. First, you may be specific about paragraphs in the article. Please identify one or two paragraphs in the article that you want to change, and how you want to change them, or one or two paragraphs that you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, you may be specific about questioning sources. If another editor is relying on sources that you think are unreliable, please identify the source, and we will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard asking about the source.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of sources record that the Warehouse was attacked by the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd "Lucky" Division,[1][2] including Western historians Eric Niderost,[3] Stephen Robinson,[4] and James Paulose.[5] Historian Rana Mitter, one of the leading pioneers in Chinese historiography, has stated the Sihang Warehouse was assaulted by "thousands" of Japanese soldiers.[6] British journalist Keane Arundel, who personally witnessed and reported on the battle, estimated over 40,000 Japanese soldiers were engaged in the combat around Sihang Warehouse.[7]
There is some contention with Japanese sources, as the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 notes the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation as its primary focus at the time.[8] Period Japanese military reports record the IJA 3rd Division was positioned just west of the Warehouse (although not far away), with the SNLF (Japanese marine force) instead listed as the primary attackers on Sihang Warehouse.[9][10]Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies— credit the Special Naval Landing Forces as the main participating force in the attack on the warehouse.[11][12]
The issue with the second paragraph is how it has been rewritten, compared with what it stated earlier:
"...the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse, instead noting the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation at the time. Period Japanese military reports similarly record the IJA 3rd DIvision as outside of Shanghai at the time (although not far away), with only SNLF listed in the attack. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies—have no mention of IJA forces attacking Sihang Warehouse in their volumes covering the Second Sino-Japanese War, crediting naval landing forces as the sole participating force in the attack on the warehouse."
Wahreit has rewritten this section to make it seem Japanese sources at least suggest or leave room for the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division. However, this is not true, they are specific in mentioning the IJA 3rd Division was outside of Shanghai engaging in the Suzhou River Operation and that it was IJN SNLF troops who attacked and captured the Sihang Warehouse.
As for the first paragraph, the issue are the poor quality sources. I had already opened an RfC regarding them over a month ago but received zero responses. It should not be hard to go through these sources and see almost none include citations to back up their claims. Two of the sources, "Niderost, Eric (December 2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse"" and "Chen, Peter (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database" are web articles with no citations at all. Perhaps Wikipedia has a lower standard, but from an academic standpoint an uncited web article with conflicting information should not be used to the allege the IJA 3rd Division was involved when all Japanese sources state they were not. The source "Kubacki, Marta (2014). On The Precipice Of Change. University of Waterloo. p. 166." has a chart noting the IJA 3rd Division's involvement at Shanghai, however the author notes the data was "compiled from Wikipedia and Simon Goodenough’s War Maps." Circular references generally cannot be used. One of the few actual books used is "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. p. 66." Not only does this work almost have no citations for the IJA 3rd Division's participation at Sihang Warehouse, the work even contradicts itself. On one page it cites "Hattori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China." Hattori's essay actually states the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred. Robinson also cites the aforementioned "Niderost, Eric (December 2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse"" as well. So in short it relies on an uncited web article just like Wahreit has and misinterprets a scholarly essay which actually contradicts it.
All of these sources brought to question above have failed to verify their claims, not once did they link back to a Japanese primary source or reliable official history/monograph. The only source used by Wahreit which could possibly be reliable is "Paulose, James (2012). Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai. United States Military Academy West Point." Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd Division. The volume is not available at any libraries in Japan as far as I know and it is too expensive to buy. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. p. 66.
^Paulose, James (2012). Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai. United States Military Academy West Point. p. 18.
^防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 編 (1975). 支那事変陸軍作戦＜1＞昭和十三年一月まで. 朝雲新聞社. pp. 380, 381.
^防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 編 (1974). 中国方面海軍作戦〈1〉昭和十三年三月まで. 朝雲新聞社. pp. 401, 402.
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.
New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico
Closed due to lack of notice. The filing editor was advised three days ago that they need to notify the other editor, but has not provided that notice because they have taken a wikibreak after filing this case. It isn't helpful to file a case and then take a break from editing,but that is a detail. If there are any remaining issues, resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There is discussion over official flagship status has is now verging on bullying.
Good faith efforts, to note the lack of official flagship status in the state (a fact) and lack of consensus, are being consistently ignored by ElKevbo without any sense of community.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
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.
The article prominently contains certain conclusions of critical scholarship which are stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution to show that they originate in the perspective of critical scholarship. On the 30th of August, I edited attribution to critical scholarship for these statements on the grounds of WP:NPOV. The same day, Bishonen undid my edit, with the summary 'Undo unsourced POV additions', and tgeorgescu posted on my talk page stating that my edit did not conform to WP:NPOV. I undid Bishonen's edit, because I did not make any unsourced POV additions. I raised this point to tgeorgescu who replied that the policies which are relevant to this dispute; WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:GEVAL. I stated that critical vs. non-critical scholarship is not a case of mainstream vs. fringe. Tgeorgescu responded with quotes from critical scholars outlining the fundamentals of critical scholarship. I responded that not all biblical scholars would accept these points (and further they actually represented controversial and contested theses, in the terminology of WP:WIKIVOICE, therefore they should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice). I gave a quote from a critical scholar, Bart Ehrman, who speaks on this issue. Doug Weller let me know that I should make a talk page post about this, which I did (linked in 'Resolving the dispute'). ViolanteMD expressed agreement with my proposed NPOV edits, and also gave some further argumentation which I also agree with, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Bishonen, tgeorgescu and Doug Weller are convinced that we misunderstand WP:NPOV. We allege that the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would appreciate if my original argument, the first post in the topic, could be evaluated, which I do not believe has occurred so far despite so much debate unfortunately. Especially the views of Ehrman should be addressed, whose practice I believe we should conform to in applying WP:NPOV. In addition, a review of the dispute in general and the quality of the arguments, to determine the course of action going forward regarding the article.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic—ridiculous: nobody in the mainstream academia (i.e. mainstream historians) believes that the Mosaic authorship is an even remotely tenable view of the Bible. Mosaic authorship falls under WP:FRINGE as patent pseudohistory. I'm not saying that JEDP is the only scholarly way of making sense of the Bible, but the Mosaic authorship isn't a plausible way. It's dead in the water in the mainstream academia. That is, the consensus that the Pentateuch was compiled from four large documents, each coherent on its own, is crumbling, but no historian worth his salt believes that Moses wrote a jot of the Bible.
If you need scholarly voices to that extent, watch the series Patterns of Evidence. I enjoyed it very much, but I kept in my mind that:
it's fundie propaganda;
it overtly seeks to give the lie to mainstream history, mainstream archaeology, mainstream linguistics, and so on.
The film opposes every Bible expert who knows what he/she is talking about. The film is worth seeing because it very clearly and honestly defines what it is opposing.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think I will take part. For one thing, I'm not any too interested in theology nor in Biblical criticism, and for another, it's a bit of a mistake to list me here, since the DRN rules above state that the preliminary talkpage discussion should normally have "more than one post by each editor". That's not the case for me; I've posted one time on talk. But I do believe Joshua Jonathan, who has now posted extensively on talk and has also edited the article quite substantially, should be listed here. (Their absence from the list is no fault of Violoncello10104's, since JJ only just turned up at the article. But they could surely help.) I thought of adding JJ myself to "Users involved", but I'm not sure that would be permitted. This noticeboard calls itself "an informal place", but the vibe it gives off is actually quite rules-heavy and bureaucratic IMO. Instruction creep? Anyway, JJ, whether or not you get listed, I hope you will take part. Bishonen | tålk14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not participating. It would be a waste of my time and energy, both of which I have little, ie for the future and today. Others have already said what I believe to be the case. Doug Wellertalk07:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I am ready to act as a moderator if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. On the other hand, I am not sure that there will be moderated discussion, because I am not sure that two editors will agree. Please read DRN Rule D . If you are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that the topic is a contentious topic because the Genesis creation narrative is considered pseudoscience if taken as a historical account. If you agree to the rules, please also read the ArbCom ruling that pseudoscience is a contentious topic.
One editor appears to have declined to take part in moderated discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Notification is required, except for the editor who has already replied.
Any editor who wants to take part in dispute resolution is also asked to answer one question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
I agree to DRN Rule D. I have notified the other three editors. I understand that the Genesis creation narrative is a contentious topic because as a historical account, it would be considered pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community (in the wording of the ArbCom ruling). While Genesis as history may be considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia's voice solely on the basis of WP:MAINSTREAM with respect to the current scientific community, authorship and consistency are an entirely different question, and to do with history and literary analysis.
Statement of article content dispute:WP:WIKIVOICE states that 'Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice'. According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree. Please see my original post in the talk page for the full quote (source: [1]). For reference, traditional scholars universally say that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are not inconsistent and often deny the conception of composite authorship. Therefore, we propose that Wikipedia should not state the critical claims in its voice, but attribute them to critical scholarship (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Furthermore, the current article misleads readers into believing that critical claims have widespread acceptance among Christians and Jews, when the opposite is the case.
According to Bishonen, tgeorgescu and presumably Doug Weller, this would give false balance to pseudohistory (WP:GEVAL), since non-critical views are fringe. However, this is not how mainstream academics such as Ehrman regard non-critical views; 'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats [sic] of NT writings) or not' (Ibid.). Here Ehrman states that it is possible for a non-critical scholar to make an argument in support of a traditional/non-critical Christian view which must then be accepted by a critical scholar. Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the talkpage discussion is not exhausted because of @Joshua Jonathan's contribution. So I think the DR should be suspended for at least some time. Also, it seems that tgeorgescu's participation is contingent on Doug Weller and Bishonen but they are not interested. Thank you very much for your time and contribution to this! Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be the only editor on "my" side. So, my acceptance depends upon whether either Bishonen or Doug Weller will join DRN.
Also, the belief that the Pentateuch has only one author is pseudohistory, see e.g. Friedman, Richard Elliott; Dolansky Overton, Shawna (2007). "Pentateuch". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 15 (2nd ed.). p. 734. ISBN0-02-865943-0. OCLC774684287. From the 11th to the 21st centuries, however, scholars have been expressing doubts about Mosaic authorship. At present, except for Ortychodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians who believe in Mosaic authorship as a matter of faith, no scholar on earth holds that Moses – or any one person – was the recorder of the Torah. You'll find the full article at encyclopedia.com .
I think that the talkpage-discussion is not exhausted yet, nor are the options available at the page itself. I've created a section Genesis creation narrative#Interpretation of the creation narrative where alternative interpretationd couls be added; alternatively, relevant alternative views could also be added to the subsections on "Authorship and dating" and "Two stories." Yet, it's not clear to me what content is contested; from these edits by Violoncello10104, and their summary of the dispute, I gather the following:
Authorship and dating:
the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ("Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
Mesopotamian influence:
borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
Sixth day:
the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
I'm wondering, though, about the statement the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. Controversial according to whom? This has not been explained yet at the talkpage, not have alternative views been proposed; so there has been no option yet to evaluate what exactly is "controversial and contested," and if such alternative views have to receive due weight. So maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt Ehrman is an academic authority. But is he an authority about the WP:RULES of Wikipedia?
While JEDP are somewhat contested in the mainstream academia, scholars agree that we can at least speak of a difference between Priestly and non-Priestly, with the Deutoronomistic History added to the book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that the situation is ready for moderated discussion at this time, so I will leave this thread in hold, and will comment briefly.
I have added User:Joshua Jonathan, and I thank him for his comments, and I suggest that the other editors follow his lead in discussing on the article talk page in a new section.
I will address User:Bishonen briefly. Her comment about formality is well taken. The statement that DRN is an informal lightweight place has been there for more than a decade. This forum has become more structured, now that it is the last content stop before RFC, and instead too often the last stop before WP:ANI or a misguided Request for Arbitration. We no longer have either the Mediation Committee or the Mediation Cabal, so this noticeboard does the work that was previously done by those mediation groups. I have found that rules are often necessary because disputes come to DRN after the editors have personalized them, and it is necessary to impose structure to separate content from conduct (and not discuss conduct).
If Bishonen, or anyone else, has any suggestions either for streamlining some or all disputes here, or for another forum in addition to this one and Third Opinion, I and others would be glad to see them, maybe at the Idea Lab, or the DRN talk page.
On the one hand, User:Violoncello10104 has not really answered my question in two ways. First, their answer is not really concise. Second, their answer isn't really about what they want to change in the article. On the other hand, I will try to summarize what I think that they are saying. I think that we really have a disagreement as to what can be viewed as the range of mainstream scholarship in Biblical criticism, including of the Genesis creation narrative. The issue is whether the mainstream includes Bart Ehrman at the "left" and Mosaic authorship at the "right", or is more restricted to what Violoncello10104 calls critical scholarship. Within critical scholarship, it is agreed that the Pentateuch was assembled from various sources, although the JEDP documentary hypothesis is no longer the leading theory within that viewpoint. Bart Ehrman is not within the tradition of critical scholarship, but is outside it on one side, and is calling for a broader concept of the mainstream that includes both Ehrman and the ultra-traditionalists. So what Violoncello10104 is arguing for is not necessarily any specific changes to the article, but a more expansive concept of mainstream scholarship.
If that is what User:Violoncello10104 is saying, then this dispute is not exactly about article content, but about sources and scholarship, and more discussion on the article talk page, as outlined by User:Joshua Jonathan, is in order.
The country in question, like Morocco for example, has Berber as its national language, a language that I think should be inserted to identify names of corps or the state as in this case.
I have seen that other people have also raised this problem as you can evaluate from the discussion page. I have also talked about it on other pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_People%27s_National_Army but I have noticed that the edits are always cancelled by the same people moreover. I therefore ask for help for this situation because I do not think it is possible that you cannot write the names in Berber of a country that has this same language as its national language.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
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.
I am trying to restructure this article taking into account the fact that Eudora is no longer a "defunct" e-mail client and hasn't been for several years. It has undergone a minor name change, to "Eudoramail", and the current trademark holder has essentially said that this new iteration of Eudora 7 constitutes a reasonable approximation of "continuing development". I have sourced every statement (not just the controversial ones), though a lot of the discussions with stakeholders (the trademark holder, the current developer—who is not the same as the trademark holder—and other customers) took place via e-mail round robins. A web page is, I am given to understand, in development and will go live shortly (the project's Indiegogo page has been used as an impromptu web page). There is also a link to the blog entry of a prominent Wellington typographer, Jack Yan, and he's furnished a review where he says that this is the same Eudora. Taken on its own, this new iteration of Eudora may or may not meet notability criteria. Taken together with E7, it definitely does.
Qualcomm, Eudora's former developer and former trademark holder, also bankrolled a continuation (which they did not develop) in the past. While in beta, it was called Eudora 8 (logically enough), but it had nothing to do with Eudora 7 in the past, was quickly renamed to Eudora OSE, and got shitcanned after one release. There are also mentions of Pandora on the main Eudora article; Pandora is an entirely different mail client, one that shares nothing in common with any of the respective iterations of Eudora.
I am trying to disambiguate between these various pieces of software, but my efforts are being stymied by Tuxman's persistent rollbacks. While I admit some of his criticisms have merit, and I will seek additional sources and once again raise the issue of an externally-hosted project Web page, the current iteration of the Wikipedia page is misinforming people.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would appreciate if someone would assist us to come to consensus as to what is and is not allowed on the Wikipedia page. Saying that Eudora ended development in 2008—PERIOD!!!—is misinformation. There does not have to be a link to the Indiegogo page if that would constitute advertising, but given that it has been used as the main point of contact and project page, it would make sense to include it. The mentions of Eudora OSE and Aurora can stay but NPOV reg. timelines.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been placed on hold.
– New discussion.