Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 238

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

The page is on 2023 Manipur violence which started on 3 May and is still ongoing even after four months. The line that the filing party disputes is taken from a journal article written by a well-recognised JNU scholar, Thongkholal Haokip, with a long record of high-quality scholarship. Contrary to their claim, the filing party did not bring forward any sources that proved it to be "factually wrong". I am happy to participate in the dispute resolution discussion, provided the original disputing party Roman3141, and the editing party Chaipau also participate. (I am not sure why Roman3141 has not been invited here. If they do not dispute the content any more, they need to say so, either here or on the talk page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

Kautilya3 has stated the situation correctly. In addition, Haokip's claim is supported not just by his scholarship but also by a pattern of valley-hills relationships in Assam, Manipur and Southeast Asia that has been widely reported in scholarship and has support across multiple academic disciplines. Thus any objection has to very specifically show academic support that the Kuki/Naga regions were not part of this pattern. Though the issue was raised by Roman3141 they have not cited any reference to support the objection. Tms369, on the other hand, has cited some references. u:Kautilya3 has addressed each of the citations, and found no support for the objection. Also, u:Kautilya3 has cited additional references that support Haokip's claim. Furthermore, I have found that the material cited by u:Tms369 conversely supports Haokip instead.

If this DR process is instituted, I will participate.

Chaipau (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 Manipur violence discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Manipur)

User:Kautilya3 says that they will participate in moderated discussion if User:Chaipau and User:Roman3141 participate. All editors have been notified. Roman3141 has not edited in ten days. Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary.

Please read DRN Rule D. We can begin moderated discussion with the editors who have responded, or we can close this case with instructions to resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Manipur)

I am ok to participate without Roman3141, assuming they have no further interest. I think it would be best to start with understanding the perceived issues with the version of the content on the page. Can the filing party state what is "factually wrong" about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The issues Kautilya mentioned have been discussed at length on the article's talk page. One of the topics which I put up has unfortunately been taken down. I am now ready to start moderated discussions with the parties who have responded. --Tms369 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Manipur)

Please read DRN Rule D again. This is the rule that is used when the topic is contentious, and this dispute is about a state in India. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the community, and to the moderator, who represents the community. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I am asking each of the editors what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want to make a change; we can discuss reasons after we know what language in the article is being disputed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Manipur)

I am to reiterate that I want either the removal of the lines "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19,[50] by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state." or replacement of it with more factually correct statements that we can all come to an agreement upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tms369 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the line is fine as it is. But I am open to be persuaded otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the line reflects the academic consensus at this point based on the evidence provided by the objectors and additional readings. I am open to be persuaded, and I shall seek reconciliation of new findings with the current findings. Chaipau (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Manipur)

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19, by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.

After the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891, the administration of Manipur was taken over by the British. They continued to administer the hill areas directly even after establishing a form of native rule in 1907. They justified this hill-valley administrative divide on their plea that the peoples were different. Scholars believe this divide had far-reaching effects on the relation of the hill-valley peoples.

Second statements by editors (Manipur)

Kautilya3

In the first place, we normally include in the "Background" section of a page only those aspects of the background that are mentioned in the reliable sources on the main topic. (That is the case for the current line.) Consulting disparate sources and constructing our narrative of what the background is, is considered WP:OR.

The filing party's proposal is very much of this kind. It talks about Manipur getting taken over by the British, then something about 1907, and then blames the British for creating a "hill-valley administrative divide". No doubt some scholars blame the British, but this is not a consensus view, because the fact that the hill people and valley people have separate histories, cultural norms and administrative/social structures is well-recognized. The cited source says, rather, that an "intractable hills-valley divide" has been created in this decade by the valley people's attempts to erase the constitutional protections granted to the hill people and the hill people's opposition to these measures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Manipur)

It appears that each editor disagrees with the other's preferred language for the Background section. I have previously asked the editors not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, but I think that back-and-forth discussion will be useful at this point to see if a compromise wording can be reached. So please discuss in the section for that purpose, for two or three days. If compromise wording cannot be agreed on, we will give the community a choice between the two versions above via a Request for Comments, but we should try to compromise first. So please discuss in the section for back-and-forth discussion. Be concise. Overly long statements are not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I agree with Kautilya3's characterization: I agree that current line is backed by WP:RS, as I have explained in point #1; and I agree that the filing party's proposal is WP:OR, which I explain in points #2, #3, and #4 above. The disagreement is between Kautilya3 and I on one side and Tms369, the filing party, on the other.

I think it looks like Kautilya3 and I are disagreeing because we had written our second statements independently without either of us knowing what the other has written. I encountered an edit conflict when I was publishing my statement, but I did not check Kautilya3's statement successfully publishing mine at the second attempt. Chaipau (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Manipur)

Back-and-forth discussion (Manipur)

I suggest that the current phrasing "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19, by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state." be retained. I agree with Kautilya3 that this is attributed by WP:RS. I suggest we reject the alternative text since it is WP:OR, as suggested also by Kautilya3. Chaipau (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Administration

I will try to be as concise as possible:

• After the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891, the hill areas were brought under British rule and the hill administration became the personal responsibility of the political agent. (Sitlhou, pp 71)^[1](Kshetri, p4)^[2]

• In 1893, the hill areas were divided for the first time into five sub-divisions. The sub-divisions were looked after by lamsubedars and lambus. (Dena, p82)^[3](Kshetri, p4)^[2](Sitlhou, pp 72)^[1]

• Even after the institution of Native Rule in 1907 under raja Churachand Singh, the hill areas continued to be administered by the British. (Dena, p60)^[3](Kshetri, p4)^[2]

• The British justified the exclusion of the hill administration from Native Rule on the plea that the peoples were different. This was a "divide and rule" policy (Dena, p75)^[3](Sitlhou, pp 72)^[1]

I had already submitted these to the editors but they have ignored it, deleted the topics it was presented in (including the one linked in this talk page) without settling the issue, and are now accusing these suggestions as being original research. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Listed below are the administrative changes after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919 for the reference of the community and the moderator:

• State durbar for administration of the hill areas was continued but there were improvements in the system;
• President of the durbar became responsible for the administration of the entire hill areas on behalf of the raja;
• Administrative headquarters were set up in Ukhrul, Tamenlong and Churachandpur. But the rest continued to be administered from Imphal by the President of the durbar;
• A separate budget for the hill areas was set aside for the first time.

(Sitlhou, pp 72)^[1](Dena, p83-84)^[3](Kshetri, p5)^[2]

All these show there was a re-organisation in the prevailing administrative system of the British - which is in contrast to the current narrative of the line in the article. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Tms369, you have given four bullet points with individual citations and four other bullet points with bundled citations. But it is not clear what these points are about. If they are supposed to be support for your version of the main article passage, I am afraid they still constitute WP:SYNTHESIS (WP:OR) as indicated by your phrase: "all these show". You are drawing your conclusions from disparate sources which are at best tangential to the present topic, viz., 2023 Manipur violence.

Note that Lal Dena, whom you have cited several times, has written a magazine article this month, explaining the relevance of the history to the present topic. In it, he unequivocally states:

In the pre-colonial period, the hill people lived as independent and sovereign nations in their respective chiefdoms, free from any external control.^[4]

Given that Lal Dena is a highly notable historian and he is writing directly on the present topic, this observation should receive very high weight, and should be incorporated in the narrative.

A case can be made that the references to "1917–1919" should be replaced by "1891", because at least some hill administration came into being in that year. But many scholars say that it was not substantial. For example, Kshetri, whom you have cited several times, says, the British rule [introduced in 1891] did not bring any marked change in the hill administration save for certain changes at the organisational level. So we have to say that this claim does not have scholarly consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The individual citations are to specify the page numbers only. Administration before the pre-colonial period, i.e. pre 1891, is a separate discussion. Let's keep it on-topic. Tms369 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the "topic"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Administration of the hill areas by the British, post colonialisation i.e. post Anglo-Manipur war of 1891. Lets not go off track and dilute this noticeboard with off-topic discussions. Tms369 (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This call that this discussion be limited to the post-1891 period---I am seeing here for the first time. It seems an arbitrary limit, and I see no justification for it. Lal Dena, in his Outlook article on the violence and referenced above, begins with:

Two immutable factors inevitably created a cyst of social incommunicability between the Meiteis, who lived in the valley, and the tribal people, who lived in the hill territory — the Kangleipak kingdom was mainly confined to the valley of about 700 square miles (Sushil Kumar Sharma, 2017:17), and, to add to its exclusivity, it adopted Hinduism at the beginning of the 18th century.

This reiterates the claim that the hills were unadministered before 1826 which is the moment when the colonial period started---the British established Gambhir Singh, one of the claimants to the throne of the Kangleipak kingdom, instituted a political agent, and made the kingdom a protectorate. 1891 is not the beginning of colonialism in Manipur, and this arbitrary limit makes no sense. Chaipau (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Zomia reference:

The article the other editors are referencing, i.e. Mr. T. Haokip's, cites J.C. Scott.

According to J.C. Scott, Zomia includes "all the lands at altitudes above 300 meters stretching from the Central Highlands of Vietnam to northeastern India".^[5][6]

As per his definition, the Imphal valley is very much a part of the Zomia landmass. Manipur is in northeastern India and lowest elevation of the Imphal Valley is 746m above MSL.^[7] The current line "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia" is therefore misleading at best, since it implies exclusion of the Imphal Valley. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid that the definition you have provided for Zomia, is not standard---it must be your own. The definition of Zomia, as given in a WP:RS, is given in terms of an elevation, yes, but it has also a human component, where his elevated regions are inhabited by minority groups:^[8]

...the Southeast Asian Massif, the highland social space where the minority groups being studied here dwell. This area encompasses a large portion of what van Schendel has arguably named Zomia and equates roughly to what Scott, following van Schendel, terms eastern Zomia. These highlands spread over a transnational domain that, most of the time, are situated above 500 metres elevation...it encompasses the high ranges extending southeast from the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, and all the monsoon high country drained by the lower Brahmaputra, the Irrawaddy, Salween, Chao Phraya, Mekong and Red Rivers and their tributaries.

Thus, the regions Northeast India does constitute a part of Zomia. Whether the Imphal valley too is a part of Zomia, Wikipedia is not equipped to decide---and so far I have seen no WP:RS claim that it is. But we have seen examples of the Kuki and the Naga people being claimed as Zomia. In fact, the Zo in Zo people, of which the Kuki are a part, is the Zo in Zomia, as also given in the Wiktionary definition of wiktionary:Zomia.

That the Zomia conceptual frame is now deeply entrenched in the study of Northeast India is given by this quote:^[9]

In the case of Northeast India, political scientist Sanjib Baruah (2005; 2007) has, for example, applied Scott’s term “nonstate spaces” in a compelling way to make sense of the ongoing political turmoil in the region. Others have followed him, and today it seems hard to think of Northeast India outside of Scott’s conceptual framework.

And the sentence which you object to is also cited to WP:RS. It cannot be dropped on the basis of a Wikipedia editors personal definition of Zomia, and since there is an extensive academic literature backing it up. Karlsson does not agree that Zomia is misleading---rather scholars have found that the Zomia framework illuminates the issues in Northeast India. Chaipau (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC) (edited) 22:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You are free to retort but please don't put words in my mouth. "Karlsson does not agree that Zomia is misleading": I merely said that your use of Zomia in that particular line is misleading because it goes against its very definition. And so far all you've done is brought another definition which emphasises my point. Tms369 (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The current sentence "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples." is attributed to Haokip (2015) and specifically it is a fair paraphrase of this part of the article:^[10]

On the other hand, the hill areas of the present-day Manipur had been a free hill country and largely unadministered even during the British rule till the Kuki uprising (1917–19). It is treated as 'illegible space' (Scott 2000) and a separate sub-cultural zone within the larger region known as 'Zomia' and the people regarded as 'non-state peoples' (Scott 2009: 23).

If you are claiming that Haokip's claim is misleading then I would like to ask you to present WP:RS that specifically challenges Haokip on this point and we can discuss how to reconcile the two sources. But if you are claiming the paraphrase is wrong and does not represent Haokip's claim, we can discuss how we can rephrase the sentence to better represent Haokip's claim. Chaipau (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Read my above points and references. Tms369 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Your references do not specifically contradict Haokip. Nor do they support your other claims on administration of the hills before 1917, as Kaurilya3 has pointed out. Chaipau (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please state clearly why you consider the sentence to be misleading. It is unclear what the references are supporting. Chaipau (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Manipur)

It appears that back-and-forth discussion is not getting closer to resolution. So back-and-forth may continue in the section for the purpose, but I will also ask the editors to resume answering my questions.

First, is the only area of disagreement the Background section about the historical context concerning the cultural differences between the valley people and the hill people? Knowing nothing of northeastern Indian history, I am deeply skeptical of any claim that there was no difference between the hill people and the valley people before the conquest by the British. There are always cultural differences between hill culture and valley culture, reflecting geography, and they are usually significant. Conquerors, including European colonialists, exploited (and often worsened) existing differences much more often than they created differences. The question should be what the differences were and who is a mutually acceptable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

However, second, if the editors cannot agree on what to say about the historical differences between the hill culture and the valley culture, can we agree either to a vague handwave, or to saying nothing?

Third, am I correct that it is two-to-one in favor of retaining the current language or something close to the current language?

Fourth, if there is no agreement, an RFC will be used, and each editor should be ready to propose the wording that they would like to be a choice in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Manipur)

Tms369

Robert, first, the disagreement is about the historical context of British administration in the hill areas. All sources point to the start of it being 1891 but the current narrative is 1919.

Second, I have no objection about the cultural differences. There are cultural differences even between the hill tribes themselves. The materials cited claim, and as you have pointed out, the administrative setup of the colonials created a big chasm by widening the divide.Tms369 (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Chaipau

My reply to the four queries/observations from the moderator:

1. Yes, there are major cultural difference between the valley and the hills. There are differences not just in culture but in form of governance, society, etc.
2. In the given context, we need to just mention the past differences that are relevant to the present conflict---as pointed out by reliable scholars.
3. Yes. Kautilya3 and I favor retaining the current language (or close to the current language).
4. Yes, I am agreeable.

Chaipau (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Manipur)

Two editors want to use the existing wording. The filing editor wants to change the wording about the Background. The other editors have said that the proposed revised wording is original research. The filing editor can either agree that they are in the minority, in which case this dispute will be closed, or they can explain how their proposed wording is directly based on sources. It may be directly based on primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, but it must be based on the sources, or it is synthesis. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Manipur)

Tms369 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tms369 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

My proposed wording is based on the three sources I referenced in the back-and-forth section. I will put the references here again:

After the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891, the hill areas were brought under British rule and the hill administration became the personal responsibility of the political agent... In 1893, the hill areas were divided for the first time into five sub-divisions. The sub-divisions were looked after by lamsubedars and lambus... Even after the institution of Native Rule in 1907 under raja Churachand Singh, the hill areas continued to be administered by the British.^[1][2][3]

The British justified the exclusion of the hill administration from Native Rule on the plea that the peoples were different. This was a "divide and rule" policy ^[1][3]

Kshetri, R. (2006) made no mention of the "divide and rule" policy, but all three sources agree on the start of British administration at 1891. Tms369 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Kautilya3

I beg to differ with the moderator about the issue of "OR". When we discuss the content that should go into the "Background" section of a page, the term is often used to label disparate facts that editors want to bring which do not have an impact on the main topic. WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT would be better policies to consult for this purpose.

The filing party's excessive focus on 1891 and on what happened between then and 1919 seems intended to suggest that the British took over the hill areas in 1891 and separated it from the valley. It completely ignores the fact that prior to 1891, the valley's rulers had not administered the hill areas. The hill areas were "independent and sovereign" in the words of Lal Dena, a senior professor of history who studied the British policy in Manipur. So, if the British instituted different administration for the hills and the valley, it was not a new division that they created. That division was already present.

Kshetri, a professor of public administration, states that whatever administration was introduced in 1819 was not substantial....the British rule did not bring any marked change in the hill administration save for certain changes at the organisational level.Stlhou, who is summarising Kshetri and Dena, writes, The colonial officials adopted a paternalistic attitude towards the hill people, which was merely confined to the formal recognition of tribal chiefs. So, Haokip (the cited source) is right to ignore the 1891 changes and mention only the administration introduced in 1919.

In any case, whether it was 1891 or 1919, the main point is that it was only the British that introduced state administration into the hill areas. Prior to that it was a "free country" (in the words of Haokip). So, as a compromise, I am fine to replace the references to 1917–1919 by 1891 in the present text, and add Lal Dena's current magazine article^[1] as the support for it. I don't see any need for additional changes in the text regarding times that are long gone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So, the new text would be something along the lines of

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after 1891 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.^[2][1]

Chaipau

I agree with u:Kautilya3's suggested text, with some minor changes (given below in bold).

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered in effect only after 1891 1917-19 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.^[1][2]

I am suggesting these changes because of the direct quote of Haokip (2015) that is cited. The quote is "largely unadministered even during the British rule till the Kuki uprising (1917–19)".

• The year mentioned in the reference is 1917-19, not 1891.
• The hills were largely unadministered till 1917. The British excluded the hills from any contact with the valley but they left it alone. This is also supported by Lal Dena. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaipau (talk • contribs)

I think Lal Dena would not agree that there was no administration prior to 1917-19. He mentions lambus, lam-subedars and pothang during that period. There was certainly some measure of state administration, however unsatisfatory it might have been, which was cause for grievances and the eventual rebellion during 1917-19. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim is not that they had no administration, but that they were largely unadministered. Soon after 1891, Lal Dena writes---"This officer, who was already over-burdened with his duty in the durbar failed to keep himself in touch with the people in the hills. As a result, the British officers failed to get in touch with the hill tribes...".

• The lambus were just "interpreters, process servers and peons" (Dena, Pudaite, 2023). They were not exactly administrative officers who administered the hills.
• In 1891, the British just formalized the authority of the tribal chiefs.^[3] So both Dena and Sitlhou agree that nothing much changed in 1891.
• The division of the hill districts happened in 1893. Shakespeare's administrative bandobast excluded the hills (Sitlhou 2015, p72). So there was a very slow creep in administrative control that eventually gave rise to 1917-1919.
• It was only after the 1917-1919 that there were serious administrative changes in the hills, and even then village administration was left to the chiefs (Sitlhou 2015, p72).

So, to avoid any WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, it is best to stick to a direct quote from a WP:RS with a date. If there is any other direct claim on administration with date, other than Haokip, we could use that instead after considering WP:DUE. Chaipau (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want a direct quote, you can use Gangmumei Kamei: After the British conquest of Manipur in 1891, the Hill Areas came under the rule of the British Political Agent who acted on behalf of minor Raja Churachand Singh.^[4] I don't see any scholar pin-pointing the difference in administration before 1919 and after 1919, other than the fact that more British officers were appointed. So, it seems pointless hair-splitting to me, for something that is of no consequence to the main topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Since we are claiming the hill people were "non-state" a date (or a range of dates) that correctly defines when external administration was imposed, and in what form, is definitely relevant in the background. If you would not like to split hair, then we should just let the current year stay, which is 1917-19, and not change it to 1891. Chaipau (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Tms369

It seems user Kautilya3, through my sources and through his own research, seems to be warmer to my suggestion. We seem to agree that administration did start in 1891. We may differ on some areas and the sources used. He suggests adding Lal Dena's magazine article (dated 7 Sep 2023), but I prefer what Dena's textbook and the other peer-reviewed sources I presented say, since Dena's current magazine is not peer-reviewed and is co-written by some unknown. I think we can work something out ultimately. But user Chaipau seems to not have budged. What should be the way forward, Robert? Tms369 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Manipur)

If the progress is between two editors but not a third, the content dispute will have to be resolved by a Request for Comments. It will be simpler if the RFC gives the community two choices on the Background wording. So the two editors who are about to reach agreement should continue to try to reach agreement on "their" version. Each editor may provide "their" version of the Background material in the space for sixth statements. Back-and-forth discussion, especially to arrive at agreement between two editors, may take place in the section below for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Manipur)

Tms369

My preferred statement, which I believe will be more in-line with Kautilay3's, would be along the lines of the following:

The hill tribes, whose administration had largely been left to the respective chiefs known as Khullakpa by the Meitei Kings, came to be administered by the British after the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891. The British continued to administer the hill districts directly until 1947.^[1][2][3] Scholars believe the colonial administration employed the "divide and rule" policy which widened existing divide between the peoples.^[1][3][4]

I'll give my thoughts on why references on J.C.Scott's Zomia should be avoided in the new back-and-forth section. Tms369 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Chaipau

I do not agree with the characterization of u:Tms369. The only issue that needs to be sorted out between u:Kautilya3 and I is whether to use the year 1891 or 1917-19. Both of us agree that we should retain the reference to Zomia and the rest of the wording. I am agreeable to the moderator's suggestion that if Kautilya3 and I are unable to come to an agreement on the year, then we will have to go to an RFC on this point. Chaipau (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Kautilya3

I am revising my proposed text in the light of Chaipau's objections:

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after 1891 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state, which was made more substantial after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917–1919.^[1][2][3]

The rationale for the adjustment is bascially the WP:NPOV policy. There is no consensus among scholars about the date when the administration became effect. Some say 1891 and others 1919. So we are trying to cover both the viewpoints. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya3's rationale that it is best to give both dates to conform to WP:NPOV. The proposed text and the cited references are acceptable to me. Chaipau (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Manipur)

It doesn't appear that there has been agreement, so it appears that we should use an RFC. Will each editor please provide the wording that they want to propose for the Background? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other issues?

Seventh statements by editors (Manipur)

All sources point to the start of administration as 1891, but they also talked about the administrative changes that occured after 1919. So I am fine with including that in my final proposal. My final proposal will, therefore, be something like:

The hill tribes, whose administration had largely been left to the respective chiefs known as Khullakpa by the Meitei Kings, came to be administered by the British after the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891. The British administrative control became more intensive after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-19 and they continued to administer the hill areas directly until 1947.^[1][2][3] Scholars believe the colonial administration employed the "divide and rule" policy which widened existing divide between the peoples.^[1][3][4]

The only differences with Chaipau now seem to be the mention of J.C.Scott's Zomia. I stand by what Kamei^[4] said on that issue.

I also believe the above lines massively improve the current Background section- as it not only succinctly describes the complex relation between the hill tribes and the meiteis, but also mentions that deeper divisions were created during colonial administration.

I am happy to go to RfC with this statement.

More back-and-forth discussion (Manipur)

I suggest completely dropping references to J.C.Scott's Zomia in relation to discussion of North-East India. As A.L.Kamei states^[4]: However, Scott's central thesis of a valley-hill binary in the Northeast region is historically hard to sustain. Wouters (2012, 55) argues that in the Northeast, "the history of state-formation in the valleys was, to an extent, a history of nonstate peoples expanding their sway downwards, in the process of co-opting or scattering former rulers". More recent scholarship has suggested that Scott might have overstated his case of hill tribes as remnants of state evading population from the plains (Lieberman 2010, Aung-Thwin 2011, Wouters 2012).

In its stead, I have suggested mentioning that the tribes were largely left to be self-administered through their respective chiefs/Khullakpas in the pre-colonial era. I hope this is agreeable to both the other editors. Tms369 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You have provided no WP:RS in support of your demand that the Zomia word should be dropped. The use of the word Zomia is specifically attributed to Haokip. And I have given other references that show that there is wide use and acceptance in scholarship on the application of Scott's framework of Zomia.^[5] Chaipau (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: You have used the quote above selectively. The author himself admits that the framework is widely used. The only specific example Kamei provides is the lack of support in the valley, which is not being claimed here at all. That it is not applicable in the hills as well, is his opinion, which is FRINGE. Chaipau (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that assessment from A. L. Kamei is not very thoughtful. Scholars didn't use the term "divide" to mean conflict; they used it to mean the two sets of people go their own ways. But he has much more substantial discussion later on about the ground realities of Manipur. That discussion entirely supports the Zomia-like thesis. For example,

Oinam Bhagat has pointed out that territorial conquest and settlement of the hill areas was not a practice of the Meitei kings but subjugation and control of hill tribes was more in terms of their military defeats.

So nobody has made any kind of case to suggest that the Manipur kings made any effort to administer the hills.

I have proposed text above (in my "Sixth statement") that takes into account both of your concerns. I hope it finds acceptance. If not, I suggest we go for an RfC. I will be offline for about a week starting tomorrow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

In reply to Chaipau, I have not used it selectively.

The full quote is:

Despite the fact that the book falls short of incorporating emperical references from Northeast India, it has enthusiastically inspired a wide scholarship on the hill-valley divide in Northeast India. (points out why the book is popular in the region). However, Scott's central thesis of a valley-hill binary in the Northeast region is historically hard to sustain. Wouters (2012, 55) argues that in the Northeast, "the history of state-formation in the valleys was, to an extent, a history of nonstate peoples expanding their sway downwards, in the process of co-opting or scattering former rulers". More recent scholarship has suggested that Scott might have overstated his case of hill tribes as remnants of state evading population from the plains (Lieberman 2010, Aung-Thwin 2011, Wouters 2012)

So, the book didn't take into consideration the history of Northeast India, and unsurprisingly fails when applied in this region.

In reply to Kautilya3, I, unfortunately, don't find your suggestion acceptable. "Zomia-like thesis" is OR.

And there were attempts made by the meitei kings to administer the hills more intensely:

(Kshetri, p4) The central supervision over the hills areas became more active during the reign of King Charairongba. It was during the reign of Charairongba that the Haomacha Loisang, the Department of hill tribes was established after the discord of his son Garibniwaj a Thangal ally. The Meetei title of Khullakpa, Ching anglakpa, 'Mantri', 'Senapati' were also introduced in the village administration

(A.L.Kamei, pp76): The increasing hostilities can perhaps be observed with the imposition of Lallup in the tribal villages along the trade routes in 1735

However, I do believe majority of the earlier meitei kings simply left the administration to their chiefs and were mostly concerned with collection of tributes. So, I will be sticking with my suggestion. There are differences to work out but since user Kautilya3 is going to be offline, I am okay to go to RFC with my suggestion in the Sixth Statements by editors. Tms369 (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, control along the trade routes had always existed, both because it is practical and because it is necessary. But it cannot be generalised to all of hill areas. In particular, the southern hills of Manipur, which are dominated by Kuki tribes, were untouched by the kings till the British administration. The majority of the Churachandpur district was not even theoretically claimed by the Manipur kings till the Chivu expedition (1871-72). There was no trade route there either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply to Tms365's response to Chaipau

• The cited work, Kamei (2023/2024), was originally a PhD thesis that has been/will be published; and the regular WP:SCHOLARSHIP rules regarding published thesis apply. This work has been/will be published posthumously; and though the original thesis has been edited, there is no indication it has been further peer-reviewed. In effect, this means that we can quote Kamei with lower WP:WEIGHT as given in WP:RS.
• As Amit Prakash has pointed out in the Foreword, "Expanding on his (Kamei's) interest in deploying a Foucauldian framework to the study of state-society relations...", the primary focus of Kamei in this thesis is the application Foucaultian framework to movements against anti-tribal bills as he says in his own words: "Drawing from the above conceptual framework, the study seeks to illustrate the anti-tribal bills movement as Foucauldian counter-constructs..." (Section 4.2). It is in this context Kamei says what you quote above: "Despite the fact that the book falls short of incorporating emperical references from Northeast India, it has enthusiastically inspired a wide scholarship on the hill-valley divide in Northeast India." Therefore:
  • Kamei is admitting that Scott's formalism has already been inspired by a wide scholarship, and is the de rigueur formalism
  • Kamei is attempting the introduction of a new formalism

The argument that Scott did not provide empirical evidence from Northeast India is true for Kamei's case as well, since Foucault did not provide empirical evidence from Northeast India either. In other words, it is too early to say that Foucault's formalism has dethroned Scott's formalism in the scholarship on Northeast India.

• The case of formalism is quite different from the historical evidence of valley control over hills. Kamei himself remarks in Section 4.5 that: "This is perhaps indicative that territorially most of the hill areas in present-day Manipur were not under the direct control of the kingdom" Kamei also points out the institution of loipotkaba as evidence of when paying tribute is no the evidence of administration: "Loipotkaba is a practice wherein a conquered tribe, mostly those in the vicinity of the valley, who were otherwise not under the administration of the monarch would have to pay an annual tribute to Meitei king..." Two counter examples are given from Meitei accounts where it could be interpreted that the Meitei kings did attempt to extend rule over the hills; but as Kamei admits, given above, there was no evidence of either historic or extant Meitei administration at the beginning of the colonial period.

Chaipau (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Manipur)

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:2023 Manipur violence/RFC on Background and am trying to capture A and B, or A, B, and C as the options for the community to choose between. Please update options A and B if they are not as I tried to capture them, and please add option C with text if there is an option C. Once we agree on what the choices are, we can start the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Manipur)

Chaipau

Thank you for setting up the survey. I have synced the version B to the consensus text (between Kautilya3 and me).

I made a good faith attempt in the seventh round of statements and discussions to demonstrate that the very author/reference Tms369 has been citing, Kamei (2023/24), had himself admitted that the dominant formalism adopted by most scholars in the study of Northeast India is Scott's Zomia; and Kamei is using a different formalism, Foucault's counter-construct, which is a novel application that is yet to be endorsed in the literature. Given the evidence so far and the fact that Tms369 has not come around to accepting the dominant scholarship in this issue, I do not see any possibility that they will every come around. You have rightly identified that there is no point in attempting further convergence.

Nevertheless, based on the discovery so far Kautilya3 and I have come to a consensus text, which is the version B in the survey, which differs only slightly with version A, the original text. Request 1: Since Kautilya3 is away this week, could we please wait for him so all of us are on board regarding the next steps?

Tms369

Added option C to the draft. Since option B was originally proposed by user Kautilya3 in the Sixth Statement by Editors, I assume it's safe we go ahead with the RfC. We don't want to waste any more of the moderator's time. Tms369 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (Manipur)

The RFC is now running, and should run for another 29 days. Are there any other issues, or should I close this dispute because it will be decided by the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Manipur)

No issues on my end. Thank you for your time, Robert. Tms369 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

Kmart discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Stevie fae Scotland

Basically, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons was changed without discussion. I reverted based on previous consensus (the links are in the discussions listed above and here). I had thought this was settled based on this RfC following a previous dispute resolution but I guess not. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PeeJay

Due to disagreements about the format that football club season articles should take, discussions took place at WT:FOOTY to help codify a consistent format. This format can now be found here. User:PicturePerfect666 seems to be of the opinion that because we haven't been able to roll out that format across the several thousand articles it should apply to, we should simply accept that we're never going to be able to stamp out the other format and allow for both in the MOS. Considering discussions took place in order to standardise these articles, I don't see why we should simply give in to those who are unwilling to accept the agreed-upon format (or are unaware of it). – PeeJay 23:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Govvy

Style guide should be able to show alternatives, I don't know why you would remove one. There is no direct consensus, but as per stated in conversation, overall usage does suggest there is a degree of consensus by usage. One can not enforce their will on others and one should not enforce their will on others. And frankly, I am more bothered that some people are using Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons as a BATTLEGROUND. Per page history, but it's a shitshow, Stevie fae Scotland broke 3RR, and now PeeJay is playing enforcer, but for what. Something that doesn't exist. I haven't seen much competence around this issue. Using WP:ACCESS for removal is just an excuse. Govvy (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Seasider53

Football Season articles and football results articles discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator on football season articles

This appears to be a content dispute that is not about one article but a large number of articles. DRN is usually for content disputes about one article, or occasionally a small group of articles. There has been discussion at WikiProject Football. There should be more discussion there. If this were one article, I would probably start moderated discussion here. If there should be moderated discussion, I am willing to act as a moderator at WikiProject Football, the association football talk page.

First, while we are here, I would like to identify the issues. Is the main issue whether to use wikitables or a template as the primary means to display results? Both are reasonable uses of the wiki software. Is there a reason why we cannot allow a choice? Are there any other issues? Are some editors being obstinate?

Please read DRN Rule A. I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the issues are. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Be civil and concise. After I read the statements, I will decide whether to have continued discussion here or whether to open new moderated discussion at WikiProject Football. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors on football articles

The main issue for me was that the style guide was edited without discussion. That really should've triggered WP:BRD when I reverted it particularly as it says Please discuss any changes on the talk page before editing this page. If I'm honest, I don't think further discussion is needed as this was discussed at length in the previous dispute resolution process (my thoughts haven't changed and the issues I would raise again are all there) and the RfC resulted in a consensus. I don't think another discussion would result in a different consensus. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The claims you make in the discussions though do not reflect the outcome of the discussions. There has been no resolution to this ongoing issues which has rumbled for years looking at it. The claims of previous discussions reaching any consensus one way or the other are laughable. There must be more than this being pushed down the road again and again. It’s time to grasp the nettle and settle this. No more bogus claims of no existent consensus, no more just a few editors at a wiki project seemingly imposing their preferred version over others who are roundly using a different version. I would also like to point out only club season articles are affected as it seems nationalteams get templates exclusively.

time to sort this once and for all with a truly wide audience and truly substantive discussion not relying on other discussions or similar distractions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on football season articles

I thought that my previous statement was clear, but maybe it wasn't. When I said Do not reply to the statements of other editors., I meant not to reply to the statements of other editors, but only to my questions. I should have said, one more time, to discuss edits, not editors, and to comment on content, not contributors. So I am saying that again. When I asked what the issues were, and whether the issue was whether to use a template or a table, I was not asking for complaints about history, or about who edited the style guide. If the issue is about style, the question should be what the style guide should say. Do not discuss previous consensus that has been ignored. It is probably best to start over and form a new consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the main issue whether to use wikitables or a template as the means to display results? If so, is there a reason that we cannot allow a choice?

Please read DRN Rule A again. I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the style or content issues are. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Do not tell me who did what in the past. Be civil and concise.

I have asked a question, which is whether the issue is the template or the table. I have also asked what the style and content issues are. After the questions are answered, we can decide where further discussion can take place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors on football articles

Second statement by moderator on football season articles

Do not edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. It is the article (or project space page) under discussion, and one purpose of dispute resolution is to avoid edit-warring. Also, when I said to be civil, I also meant to be civil in edit summaries and to Assume Good Faith. One editor is casting aspersions in edit summaries.

It appears that one issue is that there is a template that does not satisfy accessibility guidelines, but that there is another template that does satisfy those guidelines. It then seems that the most reasonable compromise is to allow either a table, which is access-compliant, or the template that is access-compliant. Is that correct? Is there any reason that cannot be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors on football articles

Second statement by moderator on football season articles

I have requested neutral opinions on this accessibility issue at two accessibility forums. I have not yet received an answer that is clearly from either forum, but we have a comment by User:Rjjiii. I would like to ask User:PicturePerfect666 to clarify their comment: Access issues are a red herring and a total non-issue. Does this mean that they do not intend to pay attention to the guidelines in the MOS? Do they mean that they should be ignored? Why are they a red herring and a total non-issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors on football articles

Third statement by moderator on football season articles

I have a few questions for User:PicturePerfect666, and a few questions for all the editors. First, for all the editors, is the main issue whether to use the table or a template for match results? Will each editor please state what they want in that regard. Second, am I correct that there are multiple templates for match results? If so, do all of the templates have accessibility issues, or only some of them? Third, if there are accessibility issues with one or more templates, can they be fixed, and is there a plan to fix them in the near future?

User:PicturePerfect666 writes: Why is a guideline being used to attempt to trump a policy and overrule a consensus which has formed through use? What policy are you saying is being trumped by a guideline? What is the consensus that was formed through use? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I will have more questions after I read the answers.

Third statements by editors on football articles

Fourth statement by moderator on football season articles

Thank you, User:Rjjiii. What are the remaining issues, including accessibility issues, concerning the display of football results?

Are we in agreement that the table and the football box template and the football box collapsible template may be used, and is there also agreement that the accessibility issues with the templates should be fixed, although there is no deadline for fixing them? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors on football articles

Fourth statement by PicturePerfect666

Common sense must prevail. The sensible thing is to fix the issues with access. There must also be an addressing of the sheer made up content inclusions/exclusions in the table and template football box. Previous discussions have pointed out the sheer bugnuttery of the selective inclusion of information and the bizarre layout of not home-away, no penalty shoot out scorers, no major match events etc. Until those are fixed there can be no moving from the template which includes the expected information. Inclusion in the MOS of the templates is essential as they are the only ones to comply with community consensus on content. The absurd and frankly ludicrous citations of things like WP:indiscriminate hold as much water as an imaginary cup.

Not including the template in the MOS is more head-in-sand burying by the small group who are active at the wikiproject and a failure to recognise they are not a rule making body, users outside the wikiproject exist and pay no attention to the wiki project. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator on football season articles

I don't think that we are getting any closer to agreement, but I am not sure what the disagreement is. What I think I have learned is that the different formats for presenting results include a table and at least three templates, {{Football box}}, {{Football box collapsible}}, and {{Football result list}}. It appears that the first two templates all have degrees of non-compliance with the accessibility guidelines, and the result list is fully compliant, but is seldom used. There are tens of thousands of page, mostly in article space, s which use the less-than-compliant templates. Going back and changing the articles is not a plausible answer. (We already have more than enough problems due to articles that are non-compliant, such as player stubs.) The templates should be fixed. It appears that an issue is whether to document the availability of the non-compliant templates. A compromise there would be to document the availability of the templates, but to note in the MOS that the templates are non-compliant and are tagged to be fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The filing editor is using picturesque language to characterize the positions of the other editors, including "sheer bugnuttery .. and bizarre layout", and more head-in-sand burying by the small group who are active at the wikiproject. This sort of language is entertaining, but does not clarify the issues. I have already cautioned the filing editor for insulting other editors in edit summaries. I suppose that I could fail this dispute resolution, saying that the filing editor has not explained what the issues are. Will either the filing editor or someone else explain what the issues are? Otherwise, I will close the dispute by saying that the MOS should note that the templates are in widespread use but non-compliant. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Does someone have a proposal for how to close this dispute, other than by stating that the templates are in widespread use but non-compliant?

Fifth statements by editors on football articles

Sixth statement by moderator on football season articles

I still don't think that we are getting any closer to agreement, but I still am not sure what the disagreement is. I think that we are in agreement that:

• 1. Some of the templates that are in common use have accessibility issues to varying degrees.
• 2. The templates should be fixed, but we are in disagreement as to how high a priority that is.
• 3. There are tens of thousands of articles using templates with varying degrees of accessibility issues, so that changing the templates is much more feasible than changing the articles.

Do we agree as to points 1, 2, and 3? Is the disagreement about what the Club seasons guideline should say? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that we agree the {{football box}} is almost compliant, and the {{football box collapsible}} has more accessibility problems, but at the same time is simpler to view.

One editor has proposed a three-month plan with monitoring. I don't understand the plan, but I see that it would require community discussion and involvement. Do we want to resolve this dispute here at DRN, or do we want to throw this issue to the community for discussion?

Do we want to agree that the templates should be worked on? What if anything should be done with the club seasons guideline? Will each editor please explain concisely where they think that we should go from here? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors on football articles

Seventh statement by moderator on football season articles

The discussion here has been useful, and progress has been made, but we will not finish resolving this dispute at DRN. At this point, we can discuss the season guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons if we think it needs changes. Otherwise we can close this case and start discussion at WT:WikiProject Football. Does anyone have a last statement? Do we want to discuss the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors on football articles

Eighth statement by moderator on football season articles

One editor says that discussion at WikiProject Football will cause identical issues, and that discussion must be at a neutral wide-ranging venue. It is not clear why they object to discussing football at the football project, so I am asking them to explain what the reason is for their objection. Why don't you consider the WikiProject to be neutral? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that prior to this case filing there was slow-motion edit-warring over whether to add the {{Football box collapsible}} template to the club season guideline page, which is a project page. There appears to be agreement that an RFC about the collapsible template would be useful, but one editor says that it should not be on the wikiproject page. Why not?

Are there any other issues that should be addressed by an RFC? Why is the project page considered by User:PicturePerfect666 to be a wrong venue? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors on football articles

Ninth statement by moderator on football season articles

We have one editor, User:PicturePerfect666, who does not want to continue discussion at WikiProject Football, because they say that there are competency, edit-warring, ownership, and battleground issues. I haven't seen other editors make those complaints. Sometimes an editor who complains of a toxic environment does so because they are in a minority, and sometimes there is a toxic environment. However, DRN is not the forum to report conduct issues or competency issues. I am ready to close this DRN discussion to allow PicturePerfect666 to report the conduct issues at WP:ANI, but only if other editors do not want to discuss content issues here at this time. I am ready to open a new discussion at DRN after the conduct issues are dealt with, if that is the plan. Alternatively, do other editors have other issues that they want to address here? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors on football articles

Summary of dispute by Redacted II

On the SpaceX Starship Flight Test article, there was a debate regarding the Launch Outcome table. Death Editor 2 wanted to remove the second planned flight, with their reasoning being that since the second flight hasn't been approved, the third flight cannot be for 2023. 3 other editors commented (including myself), two of which sided against them, and one of them was indifferent. Death Editor 2, instead of accepting defeat, removed the second planned flight from the chart. I reverted this edit 3 times, but did not continue to a fourth revert. I then warned them on their talk page, which quickly became another debate. They have a history of disruptive editing, and have been warned by other users on their talk page before. Redacted II (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems like it's died down now, after I proposed a compromise (they never responded, but they didn't revert my last edits).

If I'm wrong, Death Editor 2, please correct me. Redacted II (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(In case I'm wrong and this needs to continue):

My goal was to remove the "Likely 2024" note from the description of IFT-2 (as it was unsourced, however, a compromise was made here), and is currently to keep IFT-3 listed as planned for 2023, as there are no sources that state IFT-3 as being planned for 2024. Redacted II (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Death Editor 2

The dispute started when I removed the third planned flight from the chart on the page. However Redacted decided to make things worse in my personal opinion by removing the likely 2024 thing from the second flight and removing it's sources as well, claiming it was 'vandalism' despite the fact that he himself was doing vandalism by removing it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship flight tests discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator (SpaceX)

I am opening this case shell to see if the two editors can resolve their dispute at DRN, as advised at WP:ANI. First, the editors should read DRN Rule A, and state that they agree to the rule. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement explaining what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Do not provide details about who has made what edits in the past. The purpose of this moderated discussion is to resolve an article content dispute. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement 0.1 by moderator (SpaceX)

Read What is not vandalism and Yelling Vandalism. Vandalism is editing that is done intentionally to worsen the encyclopedia. Introducing random profanity is vandalism. Removing content without an explanation is vandalism. There has been no vandalism in this dispute. You are both acting in good faith, and vandalism is bad faith editing. Remember that the idle claim of vandalism is a personal attack. So don't yell vandalism. State concisely what you want to change in the article. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement 0.2 by moderator (SpaceX)

Please state concisely what you want to change in the article (or what you want to leave the same). Do not, at this time, tell what edits there have been in the past, or what has happened before now. Tell what you want changed in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (SpaceX)

First statement by moderator (SpaceX)

Is there still an article content issue? If there is an article content issue, please state what you want to change in the article (or what you want left the same that another editor wants to change). If there isn't still an article content issue, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue has been resolved, but I want Death Editor 2 's opinion before this is closed. Redacted II (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah the article as it stands is now fine. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (SpaceX)

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.

Summary of dispute by Jenhawk777

My complaint is with two things: the claim that there is "scholarly consensus" and the source for that claim. The source which makes the claim, is itself sourced to a self-published work, and neither has any data, or support, or even a cited discussion, of a scholarly consensus actually existing. It looks like a baseless claim in a heavily biased source.

This is not about the veracity of the claim concerning authorship itself, which the talk page discussion kept veering off into. This is purely - imo - an issue with the claim there is such a thing as consensus concerning it. This is a big claim, and as such, it needs a better more reliable source, or imo, the claim should be removed.

I am tired of asking that personal points of view not be discussed, since whether I personally agree or not is completely beside the point, and I have repeatedly stated that. I have an unwavering commitment to practicing neutrality. There's an essay on my user page on it. It's not about which individual scholars agree or don't or which "side" they are on. That doesn't prove consensus. For me, it is just about whether the claim of consensus is well sourced. If it isn't, then it should go until a better source for it can be found. That's it. That's all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Historical reliability of the Gospels discussion

Summary of dispute by Sportsfan 1234

Summary of dispute by Hey man im josh

Talk:Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games discussion

• Volunteer Note - A Third Opinion volunteer is offering comments on the article talk page. Continue discussion on the article talk page for another 24 hours. If that discussion is inconclusive, the Third Opinion volunteer should be added to the list of participants. In the meantime, I am neither opening nor closing this case request. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Dr. Simon Hurt

Summary of dispute by Timceharris

Summary of dispute by GDuwen

Jennifer Connelly discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Bilorv

The article has seen much single-purpose account activity, persistent from 2020 to present. A user claiming to be James Veitch has previously made edits requesting removal of this content, and Char296 says they have "a real-life connection" to Veitch. After a sockpuppet started a thread on BLPN in 2021, an experienced editor significantly reduced the amount of weight given to the allegations, but they remain one of the most major sources of coverage of Veitch and are necessary to explain many key career events (such as having a Quibi role dropped). No new sources have come to light since then.

My position continues to be that we should reinstate a description of the allegations, sourced to The Hollywood Reporter (RSP entry). — Bilorv (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

James Veitch (comedian) discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Eldanger25

This is an admittedly unusual dispute. Ultimately, the section of the article itself - an "authorship controvery" - should be deleted as based on a single source from a broken link, i.e., undue weight given to currently unverifiable information in a currently unavailable source (EDIT - the archived source has been restored, though the undue weight issue remains).

In essence - in 2002, an individual made a public claim of authorship of a work of art published in 1968, and provided certain biographical details about herself (age, region of the United States, physical disability, professional history). Some time after 2002, a 1993 news article became available online that was a profile of a person with the same first and last name, profession, region of the United States, and identifying physical disability. This article provided contradictory biographical information about the 2002 claimant - specifically, that she became a performing musician circa 1980, 12 years after the work of art at issue was published.

There is a claim of synthesis/improper original research if the 1993 article is included, apparently because it did not identify the subject of the 1993 article as the same person who claimed authorship in 2002 of a song published in 1968 by a songwriter who died in 1973. To the extent this is an "authorship controversy," I submit that data in a reliable, accessible 1993 article about someone who is almost certainly the same person as the claimant who told a different story in 2002 is directly relevant to the "controversy," and should be included in some fashion, if the controversy is included at all. If this is a policy violation, then the policy should be changed, because Wikipedia is a valued, primary source for many people, and all relevant facts should be available when someone accuses a dead person of fraudulent/criminal conduct 30 years after their death, and appears to have told a different story to a newspaper just a few years earlier.

In any event, I think the whole section should be deleted given the undue weight/inaccessible link issue, but if the 2002 claims are included, certainly the 1993 data should also be.

Thank you for your time, and thanks to ThaddeusSholto for a sincere, vigorous, and interesting good faith discussion. Eldanger25 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldanger25 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. I do not know anything about this song or its authorship controversy, and the editors will have to explain to me and to the community what the issues are. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I understand that this request for mediation has to do with the section on the authorship controversy. Before we get into the question of whether there is synthesis or original research, I would like each editor to provide what they think that the authorship controversy section should say. Also please say whether there are any other issues besides the authorship controversy. I want to see the alternative text versions of the authorship controversy section before considering whether either of them involves original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Statement fromEldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a proposed draft of the section below. Other issues include: whether the section should be deleted entirely on undue weight grounds, as the "authorship controversy" is effectively premised on a single source - a 2002 article appearing roughly 35 years after 1968 publication of the song at issue, in a now-defunct website (http://folklinks.com/) - and is multiple paragraphs long.

Thank you for your time and moderation.

Eldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement from ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

While there may be an undue weight situation based on the single source for the section, I don't think the fact that the website is dead is relevant. We have an archiveURL for it active right now. For me the main issue is attempting to use a 1993 article to refute the content of a 2002 when the two never directly connect to each other. It is textbook WP:SYNTH to use two references to draw a conclusion not explicitly made in either reference themselves. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft versions of authorship controversy section

Hello - thank you for your time and moderation. My proposed draft is below:

Second statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

There are two proposed versions of the Authorship Controversy section. They appear to differ in that one of them has a paragraph about a 1993 Orlando Sentinel article. Is there any other difference? I understand that the issue is whether inferring that the song was released before Sammons began performing as a singer is synthesis amounting to original research, and that is why one editor includes the paragraph in the draft and the other does not. I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to why the questioned paragraph should or should not be included. We may refer this question to the original research noticeboard, but we will try to resolve it here first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Third statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I have referred this dispute to the original research noticeboard. You may each make one additional concise statement, but it would be better to make any statements at this time at the original research noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Fourth statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I am put in mind of a message from an ancient pre-video text-only computer game, when one enters certain commands. "Nothing happens." Nothing has happened at the original research noticeboard, so we will not get resolution there. I have started a discussion at WP:AN about NORN being an abandoned noticeboard.

I am composing a draft RFC for comments, and the community will decide. The draft RFC is at Talk:Hickory Wind/RFC on Authorship. Please enter a brief statement in the Reason to Add Paragraph or Reason Not to Add Paragraph, to explain your position. After the brief arguments are included, we can publish the RFC. Do not vote in the RFC yet.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Hickory Wind‎ discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Reywas92

This user continues to add unrelated primary sources to the article in order to undermine the sources that actually cover the topic. The article is about Bahsahwahbee and related events in the area, not general events between Indians and settlers and the army. While discusses the site, an event recounted by Wilson, and their relationship, DeoVindice has added a primary source of an account by a Lieutenant Gay that is never discussed in relation to this site or contrasted with Wilson's account, yet that's what he's doing as original research. This previously included long quotations that were intended to be a contrast despite no independent sources doing so, as well as the OR conclusion "It is unlikely he would target a large tribe of Indians based on this report." DeoVindice insists that "Both sides should be presented", but there he is doing the research here, presenting these other primary quotations as the other side when no secondary source does so or relates it to the article's actual subject. Now he has totally reorganized this section so that the unrelated quotations are shown first at length, with the source actually about Bahsahwahbee almost entirely removed. While I agree the article should note that there is limited historical documentation for this event as well as context, it should not be rewritten to be about what may be an entirely different event, with zero secondary sources connecting it to the subject. Reywas92^Talk 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The articles have more relevance than Wilson's story. They are dated, corroborated (US Army and Mormon newspaper) and occurred in the region. Wilson's story was written 51 years after the alleged event, has no date, no location, and no mention of Spring Valley. DeoVindice (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Spring Valley Massacre of 1859 does not appear to have occurred within the Bahsahwahbee TCP area itself" as quoted in the PDF. DeoVindice (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This source still dicusses it in the context of Bahsahwahbee and that the Tribes commemorate it at Bahsahwahbee. Your sources say nothing at all about it. My source is an independent analysis by a historian, your source is you interpreting the primary sources your own way. You are engaging in an edit war to impose your own version of original reseach with sources that do not specify any relation to the topic, and you should be blocked if you continue. Reywas92^Talk 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

How convenient of you to leave out the next sentence "However, Bahsahwahbee memorializes that massacre, and it is the location where Newe go to remember, mourn, and pay homage to the spirits of their ancestors who were massacred." If Gay's account occurred in the region, you can add that to Spring Valley (White Pine County, Nevada) or another relevant article, but it does not belong at Bahsahwahbee unless reliable independent sources connect it. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the PDF is merely an application to register Bahsahwahbee as a place of historic significance. It is not a peer-reviewed and academically rigorous document. You may have written it yourself. It relies on Wilson's unsubstantiated and unverified account written 51 years after the event. Both of these sources constitute original research. DeoVindice (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:OR applies to original research by users. Research done by a third party (which obviously was not me) and published in the NRHP application – approved by the National Park Service – does not constitute original research. Original research would be your exclusive use of primary sources. It's also original research for you to decide that Wilson should be discounted. The article can include clarification that it was written later, but not replacement of it with something that no one has connected to Bahsahwahbee. Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bahsahwahbee discussion

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet properly notified the other editor (because they did not say where they were requesting the mediation). Also, the discussion at the article talk page does not yet consist of two posts by each editor. This discussion will be opened if the preconditions are met. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Please also read What is not vandalism, and do not refer to edits with which you disagree as vandalism. Be civil and concise. Do you both want moderated discussion? If so, do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.

It appears that the controversy is about which of two accounts of the 1859 Spring Valley massacre to include in the article. Is that correct? It also appears that each editor has issues with the reliability or verifiability of a source. I would like each editor to make a brief statement including:

• 1. Please describe briefly the source that you want to include that the other editor wants to exclude.
• 2. Please state briefly why the other editor's source should not be included.

There does not appear to be any issue about original research. That concern may be a misinterpretation of what is meant by original research. The issues have to do either with the reliability of sources or with primary and secondary sources.

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Robert.

1. The sources I would like to include are the report of Lieutenant Ebenezer Gay to his superior office documenting a skirmish with some Native American warriors in the Utah Territory near Camp Floyd on the 14th of August 1859. He was pursuing the group after their massacre of an emigrant train, including women and children. Gay reported 20 casualties among the warriors and no deaths of his troops. Gay's report can be found in the Senate of the United States 36th Congress documents. The next source is that of Gay's superior, General Albert Sidney Johnston, who references the incident in a November 1859 report to General Winfield Scott. It shows that the incident was the only notable clash with the Native Americans in the summer/autumn of 1859. Johnston would have had no qualms discussing a large massacre if it had actually occurred. The final source is from a Mormon newspaper, the Mountaineer, which reports the same incident with corroborating details. The Mormons were antagonistic to the US Army and would have no reason to omit mention of a massacre involving hundreds of Native Americans.
2. Reywas92 maintains that two unreliable documents conclusively prove a massacre of hundreds of Native Americans at Bahsahwahbee in the summer/autumn of 1859. The first written by Nicholas E. Wilson, who claimed to be an interpreter and guide to the US Army (I cannot find any documented evidence that he was), discusses a graphic massacre involving hundreds of Native American deaths and at least one death of a US soldier. Wilson's account is from 1910 which is 51 years after the alleged incident. He died in 1915 and his stories were published in 1926. He admits that it is a collection of stories that he used to entertain his grandchildren. Wilson was not a soldier and it is unlikely he could assess the number of casualties in a battle. We don't even know if Wilson was actually present. A massacre of the magnitude implied by Wilson would have resulted in some news coverage. The Mormons would have reported it as they were hostile to the army. The US soldiers could not have killed 350 Indian warriors plus women and children without incurring a significant casualty rate themselves. Yet none are reported. Who buried the supposed 700+ casualties? Johnston was an honorable officer who led his men with discipline and would not have permitted his troops to commit a massacre. He was outraged by the Mormon-instigated massacre at Meadow Mountain. Johnston blamed white men for instigating the massacre of the emigrant train to California and would not have wiped out an entire tribe in response. Johnston's aide, Major Fitz John Porter said his superior treated the Indians with kindness during his tenure. Johnston was the army commander and spent nearly all his time at Camp Floyd observing the Mormons and maintaining order. He would not have personally led four companies on a raid. Wilson could not even identify the correct officer. Gay was in command of the detachment and said that his troops behaved nobly. The second source, a PDF of an application to register Bahsahwahbee as a place of historic interest is also used inappropriately. It is not a peer-reviewed document and relies almost exclusively on Wilson's story. Reywas92 claims my sources do not locate the event in the Spring Valley, but Wilson never mentions the Spring Valley either. The PDF states that the alleged massacre did not occur at Bahsahwahbee. The place is used to memorialize. Yet he excludes my sources because they "didn't happen" at that specific location. These documents impugn the honour of Gay and his men. Wilson has conflated stories of over half a century to concoct a thrilling fabrication. The was a clash between the Native Americans and US Army in the summer of 1859, but it did not result in hundreds of casualties.
3. Reywas92 has called me an "apologist" who wants to "justify" the alleged massacre and has reported me to the moderators but I just want the truth to be known.

DeoVindice (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is very simple. The sources DeoVindice wishes to include do not mention Bahsahwahbee. Is this the same incident Wilson recalled in his memoir? Maybe! Is Wilson's account definitive? Maybe not! But the key source connects Wilson's account to the Native Americans' memorialization at this place, while DV's primary sources do not. None of the speculation above is relevant to Bahsahwahbee, the Swamp Cedars site. It may be relevant to other articles related to American_Indian_Wars#Great_Basin, but DeoVindice's agenda to protect the "honour of Gay and his men" is based on his own conclusions and interpretations, not sources directly related to the article's topic. I am fine with this version that shows the source that's actually about Bahsahwahbee first, then a comparison with Lt. Gay's account, or a version that's more condensed with less quoting, but not his reversal that has the unrelated primary sources first. Reywas92^Talk 13:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)

First statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)

Comment on content, not contributors. I do not want to elaborate.

One editor wants to include the report of Lt. Gay to Albert Sidney Johnston and the report of Johnston to Winfield Scott. The other editor wishes to exclude those reports because they do not refer to Bahsahwahbee. The other editor wants to include the memoir by Wilson, much later. The first editor wants to exclude it both because it was much later and because they think that it is not worthy of belief. I see two possible ways to resolve this. First, we can agree to include both reports, but with comments as to reliability and applicability. Second, we can ask for the sources to be evaluated at the reliable source noticeboard. We will include both reports only if both editors agree. Otherwise, we will ask the volunteers at RSN for their assessments of source reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)

Second statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)

One editor has not edited in a few days. I will repeat what I posted three days ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the controversy is about which of two accounts of the 1859 Spring Valley massacre to include in the article. Is that correct? It also appears that each editor has issues with the reliability or verifiability of a source. I would like each editor to make a brief statement including:

• 1. Please describe briefly the source that you want to include that the other editor wants to exclude.
• 2. Please state briefly why the other editor's source should not be included.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any issue about original research. That concern may be a misinterpretation of what is meant by original research. The issues have to do either with the reliability of sources or with primary and secondary sources.

If one editor has taken a break from editing, I may have to close this case, and to advise the other editor to edit, but do not edit recklessly.

Second statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)

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.

Summary of dispute by Caleb Stanford

V (programming_language) discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Poketama

Summary of dispute by Michael Bednarek

Cooman discussion

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.