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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Flag of Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fry1989 (talk · contribs)
• Kpalion (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Kpalion absolutely refuses to allow our Commons SVGs of the Polish flag to be used on the article, in favour of two files which show the white section of the flag as grey, which he claims is the statutory colour by law. He repeatedly removed the SVGs with real white from the infobox, it became an edit war between myself and him back in June 2011, however since I left the article at that date, he has tried to impose photographs of the Polish flags as a "compromise", which was never agreed to by anybody. He has repeatedly reverted IPs and any other users that wish to return the white SVGs to the infobox. I came back and returned the SVGs once, and he has again removed them completely and placed photographs in the infobox. Despite whatever he claims, there simply is zero consensus for this action, and every single other article on Wikipedia uses the SVGs that Commons provides. It is only Kpalion that has a problem with the SVGs of the Polish flag we have, and he is edit warring and showing an ownership problem over the article to impose his will because he does not like the SVGs.

Proper dispute resolution is required, because 30 did not bring about a resolution, and Kpalion will continue to impose his will as long as it is allowed. Either a proper consensus must be formed here against his imposition and his changes forcibly reverted, or consensus gained in his favour for this very unorthodox presentation and exclusion. However, the current situation of one user imposing his will with zero consensus or support behind it, can not continue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Issue has been discussed extensively on article talk page, including a Third Opinion.

How do you think we can help?

By forming an consensus on how the article should be presented.

Opening comments by Kpalion

I am not sure what Fry's issue is exactly – is it the shade of the upper stripe in the diagram of the Polish flag? The file type (PNG vs SVG)? The use of photographs rather than diagrams in the infobox? Perhaps all three, so I'll try to address each, one by one.

Color variant	Flag without coat of arms	Flag with coat of arms
"Statutory white" upper stripe	Flag of Poland (normative).svg	Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG
"Pure white" upper stripe	Flag of Poland.svg	State Flag of Poland.svg

1. The article currently uses two diagrams to illustrate the designs of two variants of the Polish flag (with and without the coat of arms). They are based on legal specifications of the flag and national colors. The latter are given in the CIELUV color space which may be good for dyeing fabric, but needs to be converted to sRGB for the purpose of display on a computer screen. Both the legal source and method of conversion are provided in footnotes to the article. Fry insists on adding diagrams which (for purely aesthetic reasons, as I understand) replace the "statutory" white in the upper stripe with the brighter web white (or "pure white"), which may look better on the screen, but is not grounded in reliable sources.
2. I have no problem with the SVG format as such. However, I lack the software necessary to produce such files. I would be more than happy, if someone with such means could convert File:Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG to SVG (keeping the statutory shades of white and red, as well as the subtle shadings of the eagle's plumage!) and upload the result to Commons.
3. One of Fry's arguments in previous discussions was that the diagram with statutory colors does not represent what the Polish flag really looks like. This is true, but the other diagrams do not represent it either. A flag, by definition, is a piece of dyed fabric hoisted on a pole or mast, that is, a physical object, whose appearance depends on lighting, wind and other external factors, not an abstract assembly of geometrical figures. The best way to illustrate a class of physical objects in an encylcopaedic article is by using a photograph of one or more real-life specimens. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Poland discussion

This is certainly an interesting dispute. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, this doesn't mean I have special powers or my opinion means more than others. It simply means I'll try provide an impartial view and mediate the discussion as fairly as possible. Once all parties have presented their opening statements we can open the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem, Kpalion (and anybody else who isn't quite sure), is your problem with the pure-white SVGs. I see absolutely no valid reason to not use them on the article, and in fact the agreement as I remember it, was to have them there, and use the ones with grey in this subsection. It was like that for a while when I was last there in 2010, and then after that you started removing them and imposing a supposed "compromise" of the photos in the infobox and grey flags in the subsection, but the white SVGs nowhere to be seen. I can't find ANYBODY who has agreed to that compromise, it's something you made up! There simple is zero consensus at this time for you to forcibly exclude the white SVGs completely, and impose photographs of the Polish flags in the infobox, something that is done NOWHERE else on this project. It's unorthodox, it's not really adding anything to the article to do it that way, and it's at the force of one user with no backing. I want a consensus. Naturally I would like that consensus to be in favour of the standard practice on every other article, and to use the SVGs that Commons provides, but overall I don't care which way the consensus goes as long as there is one. I can't stand by and continue to allow you to treat this article like you own it and force, through edit warring, your way. That's my problem, I've made it clear, and I'll step aside and see how this goes. If anybody wants me to answer a direct question, naturally I will do so. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Fry. I guess one thing we can agree on for now is that there is currently no consensus and we both want to achieve one, which is promising.

Cabe, do you have any questions? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this right, the dispute centres around two related points:

1. Whether or not to include just the grey flag or the grey flag and the white flag
2. Whether to use the image files (format makes no real difference so I'm ignoring any .SVG or .PNG debates) or photographs of the flat

Is that a fair assessment of the issue? Also, folks lets focus on the content and not the conduct. It can be difficult to separate them but if you find yourself writing about the other individual take a moment and refocus on the content at hand. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Roughly. Kpalion hasn't been able to provide a single image image of a flag using the supposed "statutory colours", every single flag I've ever found including those in government use have pure white, not the hideous grey that Kpalion is imposing. And even if he did, that by itself isn't a reason to exclude the white flags altogether. That what the original agreement when I was last there, to have both. Quite frankly, conduct is part of the problem, even if you want it to be separated from the content part of the issue. Should we allow a single article to stick out of the norm because of the dissatisfaction of one user? Should that user be allowed to impose his dissatisfaction with zero consensus for it? I believe those are valid questions to ask, and they have a bearing on the direction this discussion may go.

Kpalion's arguments are also weak at best. He argues that a flag by it's very nature is a physical piece of fabric. While that is true, that doesn't mean we're going to start putting photos in the infobox of every flag article we have, which is practically the precedent that his argument would set whether or not that is his intention. He also argues that the grey on the files he wants to use is "statutory white" while the SVGs use an "aesthetically pleasing web white". The problem with that argument is there is no such thing. White is a pure colour, along with black. As soon as you change it in any way, it becomes a shade of a different colour. In this case it has become grey, but if you added some red it would become a shade of pink, and so on. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the definition of white. There is only one white, any presence of any other colour means it is no longer pure white. I see someone previously linked to a 'shades of white' article but those are not pure white and could be describes as 'very light x' where x is the mixed colour. Calling them "cream white" is simply a naming convention rather than the actual colour.

In terms of the definition of a flag. A flag (the item) is a piece (or multiple pieces) of fabric dyed and stitched together. However this article is not about the flag (the item) but is about the flag (the emblem). An emblem is a design which the physical flag is based off. The two are distinctly separate. In this case The Flag of Poland is about the non-physical entity that is the symbolic emblem of the country of Poland. It is not about the physical representation of that flag as a piece of cloth. I think an important distinction needs to be made there. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point is that whatever diagrams of the Polish flag we use, they must be based on reliable sources. The "statutory white"/"grey" image is based on specifications provided in Polish law. The "pure white" image does not seem to be based on any reliable source. Unless a source for the latter is provided, I can't see how it can be used anywhere in the article. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy, so I suggest that we settle on this first and only then move on to discuss other issues, such as the use of photographs in the infobox. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the above before reading Cabe's comment, so now I'm responding to Cabe. The law on Polish national symbols does not use your, Fry's, mine or anybody else's definition of white; it uses its own definition of white (as well as its own definition of red), expressed in trichromatic coordinates in the CIELUV color space. We really should refrain from arguing about what we personally think is the correct definition of white and focus on the definition used in the source.

The same source is also pretty clear in its definition of a flag: "The national flag of the Republic of Poland is a rectangular band of fabric in the colors of the Republic of Poland hoisted on a mast." — Kpalion^(talk) 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And as I have stated, the Polish Government doesn't even obey the supposed setting for the white, not that reliable if you ask me. Am I mistaken in believing the Polish law on the flag is that it is a white and red bicolour? Any settings of the specific shades are statutes and not laws. If the primary law says white, there is only one white. That is simply a fact, no matter what some government official thinks white includes.

Look, as I pointed out before, I have no problem with both the pure white SVGs and the files with the so-called "statutory white" being on the article, that's what I agreed to back in 2010. The simplest solution would have been to leave it at that, but Kpalion simply won't "allow" the pure white files to be anywhere on that page. We could easily have the pure white SVGs in the infobox, like everywhere else, and then Kpalion could write a subsection about the "statutory colours" and have the images with those settings next to it. What is the problem with that? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry makes a lot of arguments that are, frankly, irrelevant. What is relevant is that he does not provide any reliable sources to back his claims, which is required by Wikipedia's core policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). There is a detailed official, legal specification of the Polish flag, yet Fry seems to believe he knows better what the Polish flag should look like. Further discussion becomes pretty much pointless in this situation.

And to answer Fry's specific question: "Am I mistaken in believing the Polish law on the flag is that it is a white and red bicolour?" The Polish law in question effectively says: "the flag of Poland is white and red, where "white" and "red" are defined as..." Polish parliament in its wisdom decided to define "white" as something that you call grey. It may have just as well defined "white" as blue and "red" as green. And you'd just have to live with it. Wikipedia's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors" (WP:V). — Kpalion^(talk) 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant according to whom? YOU???? The person who has completely failed at gaining consensus in practically 3 years for how he wants the article and has reverted to edit warring to force it the way he wants as if he owns the article? You have no right to do that, and lie about your changes saying they're a "compromise" that nobody seems to have agreed to. Do you have any users who agreed to have the photographs in the infobox as you repeatedly say is a compromise solution? Do you have ANY users who agree to the exclusion of the white files from the article altogether, even though they are used everywhere else on this project to represent Poland? No, I don't think you do. What is irrelevant is what you want, unless you can get consensus to back it up. If your arguments are so relevant and strong compared to mine as you suggest, why in 3 long years has nobody agreed with you? Even after a ThirdO and all these years on that talk page, nobody has sided with you. Half a dozen users have reverted your changes, which would such the actual consensus is against you. It doesn't matter if you have a million sources for what you want, if you have zero consensus for it, you have no right to impose it. Wikipedia is guided by consensus and agreement, not the will and imposition of a single user. If consensus is formed here against your changes, it is you who will have to live with it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are 204 countries in this world. We have atleast double that number in flag articles when you count subnational territories. They all follow a common outline here on Wikipedia, consisting of an infobox with an SVG digital illustration of the flag. Kpalion's argument that "A flag is, by definition, a piece of fabric hanging on a pole - a physical obejct, not an imaginary colored rectangle. The best way to represent the look of a physical object in an encyclopedia is a photograph of one or more samples. The place of diagrams is in the Design section." completely fails the test of reasoning. There is no rule against photos of flags on the articles, in fact it is a common practice BUT it is not done in the infobox. Flag of Poland should not be the "exception to the rule"

Kpalion also says "The sources for the statutory color scheme and explanation of their conversion to RGB for the purpose of creating diagrams for Wikipedia are already in the article. Good, then why is he unwilling to have File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg and File:Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG next to that subsection to illustrate what the Government statute says in it's context, while having the SVGs (for which there still remains zero consensus for exclusion) in the infobox as is the set out practice on every other flag article that exists? It's a very simple solution and the one I recommend. It is not unreasonable, it does not demand the exclusion of one or the other as Kpalion is trying to do, and it allows readers to see both. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Question for Fry: One of your main arguments is that the usual practice on flag articles is to have an SVG of the flag in the infobox. Are you aware that File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg is an SVG, and although I understand that we don't have an SVG of the flag with the coat of arms and the "statutory white" colour, there is no particular reason why one couldn't be created. CarrieVS (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I'm aware of that, it has ".svg" at the end of it. However the State flag does not have an SVG equivalent in those colours, so I group the two together when I'm referring to them. And even if there was, this problem would remain. The Polish Government does not obey their own statutes, Kpalion knows this because he tried to make the ridiculous argument that the Polish Government could decree that red was green and I would have to live with it, when we all know if the Polish Government tried to do that, they'd be laughed at. There is absolutely no reason to not have the pure-white files in the infobox, and the grey ones in an appropriate sub-section that discusses and explains to the reader about the colour statutes and how they're not always followed. We have other articles on various subjects that say "the authority says it has to be this but it's often something else", that would be so simple and easy and explain what the situation is. What is wrong with doing that? Why is one user being allowed to railroad this article and personally ban two images from it which are used everywhere else to represent Poland? It's inconsistent, it's not backed by consensus, and it's not helpful to the article either educationally or aesthetically. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Woah! I understand it must be very frustrating, but this thread isn't the place to vent. No-one is being allowed to ban any images from anything; if that were the case, we wouldn't be discussing it to try and come to an agreement. If we're going to get anywhere, we need to stick to calmly (easier said than done I know, but please try) discussing the content issue.

"However the State flag does not have an SVG equivalent in those colours" - but there's no reason why someone can't create one (it sounds simple enough to do), if we were to agree that that was what we wanted (I'm not saying I think it is; I have no opinion either way). So I think we need to separate the argument for having SVGs in the infobox and the ones about which colour SVGs to have. That's all I was saying.

I think it is best to discuss one point at a time. I think we can sort out the SVG issue quite easily; the difficult one is the colour issue. So let's focus on that one. And let's remember, whichever one we put in the infobox, it would be perfectly possible to put the other one in the subsection about the colour statutes not always being followed. It's not a question of using the pure white ones in the infobox or we can't use them at all. CarrieVS (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First, Kpalion has been allowed for nearly 3 years, due to nobody paying attention and raising the issue until now, to forcibly exclude two images that he disagrees with from an article. I call that a "ban", he wont let them on there, every though they are used everywhere else where a graphic of the Polish flags is required, and multiple users and IPs have made the attempt to place them on the article. Second, there is in fact a problem with creating a grey SVG of the state flag with the arms on it. This problem existed on Coat of arms of Poland, though mostly just smouldering embers than a real dispute. We have File:Herb Polski.svg, which is an excellent SVG recreation of the Polish coat of arms which matches many Polish sources to a T. However there was one or two user/IPs which preferred File:Coat of arms of Poland-official3.png and whom claimed our SVG could never match up to it. It is simply impossible, short of being a SVG graphical genius (which I am not), to be able to do all those gradients and shadings effectively on the SVG coat of arms. Third, I'm the one proposing we use both sets on the article and it was what I originally agreed to. It is Kpalion who wishes to force the use of only one and exclude the other. You have the two of us mistaken. Lastly, I'm not venting, I'm stating the facts. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I expressed myself badly. My apologies (and I promise not to edit at 3am again). Let me try and clarify.

• Whatever might have gone on for the past three years, no-one is being - present tense - allowed to ban anything. We're trying to come to an agreement, and both sides are being heard fairly.
• I never said, and certainly didn't mean to imply, that you wanted to exclude one colour from the article entirely. I am well aware that you have proposed having them both. But you seemed to be arguing that the only choice is between having both (with pure white in the infobox) or only having one. But it's perfectly possibly to have both, with the other in the infobox (regardless of whether anyone's proposed it yet, it's certainly possible to do).
• Perhaps 'vent' was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that the tone of your comments seems very emotional, and you have been tending to dwell on behaviour, on what's happened in the past, and on other things besides the actual content issue at stake. We will stand much more chance of getting somewhere if we speak calmly and stick to discussing the content. In particular, we do not discuss user conduct at this noticeboard.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but the discussion has moved on now, so let's put the misunderstanding behind us. CarrieVS (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't use photos of flags in the infobox, see flag of China for an example. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the precedent of every other flag article I'm replacing the photo's in the infobox with the "computerized versions" which are already in the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First, I agree with CarrieVS that we should stick to the issue of "grey-white" vs "pure-white" flags first, as this is the most difficult and contentious problem here. The other questions, of file types and choice of images in the infobox, can be fairly easily resolved once we are done with the colors.

Secondly, I admit that I shouldn't have used the word "compromise" when talking about the my proposed solution, as clearly there was no compromise. It was, at best, a failed attempt at a compromise. For the record, a similar solution to the one I propose is used at pl:Flaga Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, but obviously a consenus reached in Polish Wikipedia is not binding here.

Thirdly, whatever consensus we arrive at here, it must not override Wikipedia policy. It is simply not in our power to trump Wikipedia's sacrosanct core policies. We cannot use images created through original research; we need reliable sources to back them up. I ask Fry not to take it personally when I say his unsourced claims are irrelevant. So are mine, if they are not backed by reliable sources. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can override Wikipedia policy and president if there is some compelling reason to make an expiation to the policy/president. To take an extreme example, if the only images of the flag we had were those photos then WP:IAR would override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the precedent of every other flag article, and allow the use of those photos in the infobox. I doubt that overriding policy will be necessary in this case, president might be bent a little tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I am in agreement that we shouldn't use the photos. I was about to reply to your previous comment mentioning WP:IGNOREALLRULES but I see Emmette has beaten me to it. Wikipedia policy is based on consensus and sometimes it doesn't quite match up to what consensus actually is, in that case WP:IAR comes into play. Regarding the white/grey debate, this one is, perhaps, harder to define but I would likely come down on the side of using the pure white svgs in the infobox and having the grey/white differences explained in a subsection as Fry has suggested. This seems to me to be the best way of representing the flag in this case. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cabe, I'm aware that IAR is a Wikipedia policy, but you will need a really good argument to override the no original research policy. I agree that the "pure white" images look pretty, but they are not based in reliable external sources. Unless they are, in which may I ask Fry or anybody else to please provide them?

And Emmette, what president are you talking about? Wikipedia does not have a president as far as I know. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe Emmette is referring to Precedent. Here's some quick suggestions: [United States Government defines the flag as two equal horizontal bands of white (top) and red; colors derive from the Polish emblem - a white eagle on a red field - The image shows a pure white flag. The UK Goverment shows a pure white flag. Consider also, that the Polish national Olympic teams used a white and red flag. I see this discussion being somewhat similar to WP:COMMONNAME. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree about WP:COMMONNAME; unless there is a guideline that says otherwise, I would be inclined to say that the one in the infobox ought to be in the commonly used colours. But I believe Kpalion's main point is that we haven't got a reliable source for the fact that pure white is usually used. So the question I think we need to ask is, does 'the colour of the Polish flag as it is usually used' fall under WP:common knowledge? If so, we may not need a source. CarrieVS (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that it does, as the information page lists "plain sight observations that can be made from public property" under Acceptable examples of common knowledge. CarrieVS (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A very good point Carrie, I think that is pretty much the end of that. What I propose is the pure white .SVGs go in the infobox, the grey images and the photos can go in a section mentioning the difference between the stated colours and the flown colours. Is this acceptable to all parties? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: List of Polish flags also contains these photos. I've had a look through about ~10 or so other List of X flags articles and can find no equivalent so I'd propose removing them from that article also Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled across this thread. May I draw to attention that heraldry uses the word argent (silver) rather than teh word Niveus (latin) or blanc (french). In all cases, the heralds actually use white. Martinvl (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Replying to Cabe: U.S. and British government websites may be reliable sources for design details of U.S. and Union flags, but they are hardly more reliable than Polish law when it comes to the design of the Polish flag. Incidentally, the articles Flag of the United States and Flag of the United Kingdom use their respecitve countries' legal acts as sources for flag designs; they do not use other countries' government websites and for good reason. And even if we were to use the flag images you linked to (CIA factbook and FCO travel advice), then which one? You do notice that theses two images have quite different shades of red?

Replying to CarrieVS: WP:CK says that "facts about which Wikipedians themselves cannot form a rough consensus" "should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations." There is clearly no consensus here, so we cannot do without citations.

A question to all: nobody here seems to have a problem with the statutory shade of red in the illustrations. Why is the legal specification OK for the red stripe, but not OK for the white stripe? Is there any reason for struggling to replace the statutory white with web white other than "I don't like it"? — Kpalion^(talk) 17:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Kpalion mentions the Polish-language Wikipedia's equivalent of this article. I would just like to point out, in case nobody noticed, that PL-Wiki's article uses this image with the caption "Polish national flag pattern published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland.". The gazetted image appears to use pure white. Whatever it uses, it's certainly not the grey seen on File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg. Is not the Government's own gazette a source? The article also has a subsection explaining the colours issue in great length. This is actually very close to what I have been suggesting: have the pure whites in the infobox, and the greys in an appropriate subsection written by Kpalion which explains the different colours set out in multiple sources. Cabe6403 appears to be in agreement. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

But what is it that we don't have consensus on? I know we don't have consensus about which version should go in the infobox, but that's not what I am suggesting is common knowledge. There are two separate questions:

• Whether, in the case that they are different, the officially correct version or the more commonly used one should be in the infobox. That isn't a matter of sources or common knowledge, but of the style of the article.
• Whether the "pure white" version of the flag is more commonly used than the "statutory white" version. This is what I suggested might fall under WP:common knowledge. Do you also disagree about that part? CarrieVS (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand your two points, but I'll try and answer as best I can. I think that the pure whites should go in the infobox, because they're the most common both here on the project and IRL, and because common knowledge is that the Polish flag is a bicolour of red and white. The "statutory" ones should have a special subsection that discusses what the government statue says, as well as any erroneous varieties. That would be in common with the PL-Wiki article which has a subsection discussing not just the white, but also the red. It would also acknowledge that the "statutory white" is not common knowledge, nor common practice. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The question was actually to Kpalion, but it's good to have your answer too.

Kpalion, what about you? Do we also have no consensus on whether "pure white" is more commonly used? CarrieVS (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have given this some more thought over the weekend and also tried to do some research online whether there are, among vexillologists, any conventions – even if unwritten – of representing colors in flag designs online. Flags of the World say this in their color guide:

Clearly, if a flag is defined with particular RGB values, these should be used, but in general there is no unique way to represent on a computer screen a particular shade defined in terms of ink, cloth, etc - any RGB value is an approximation. Allowing too much variation in RGB values gives a false impression of accuracy. In reality, the differences between different representations of the same shade can be more than the differences between the relevant browser safe colours. So it makes sense to use some standard, and the 256 browser safe values are a reasonable standard to choose. [...] Naturally, the ultimate authority concerning colours of flags is still the legal specification laid down by those who adopt flags. However, such specifications are usually intended for textiles or printing, and do not give much meaning for computer colours on screen.

Given that the national color specifications set in Polish law are meant as a guideline for flag manufactures (that is, for dyeing fabric) and not for representign the national colors online, it may be OK to use the purest white available in the given medium (web white in the case of a computer screen) to represent the color white. I shall put the "pure white" flag images in the infobox and restore the two photographs somewhere else in the article. I will not restore the "grey" flag images; File:Barwy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.svg should be enough to illustrate what the CIELUV coordinates convert to in RGB. I believe this settles the issue.

I would like to thank Fry1989 for bringing this up for discussion; Cabe6403 and CarrieVS for their efforts in mediation; and everybody for an interesting debate. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you for your willingness to reach a compromise. Considering this was, primarily, a two person debate I now consider this resolved and will mark it as such. If anyone feels it was resolved in error they can let me know via my talk page and I will consider re-opening it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:34, 19 February 2013 (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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• La Luz del Mundo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fordx12 (talk · contribs)
• RidjalA (talk · contribs)
• Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs)
• WikiNuevo (talk · contribs)
• Darkwind (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

RidjalA believes that content in the Controversy section and the Discrimination section is not relevant or shouldn't be included. Such information provides other POV's to the accusations listed in the "Rape accusations" subsection of the article. He also wishes to include a source that has been declared unreliable or unusable by an RfC located here [1]. A past RfC located here [2] stated that the controversy section should be removed, or it should be merged with the Discrimination section and turned into a "Public image" section.

A past editor who started a dispute between Wikinuevo and Ajaxfiore brought about this discussion which has routes in a past dispute discussed in this noticeboard [3]

RidjalA and Ajaxfiore do not agree on the location of the "Silver Wolf Ranch" subsection. One believes it to belong in the controversy section, another believes it to belong in another section as "Scrutiny." This is based on whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection is a "controversy."

I believe that the discrimination section should be refined for easier reading, and it does not have undue weight. All content described here [4] is relevant and should be included in the rape accusation section, and that the controversy section should be changed as stated in the RfC. I believe that if a Public Image section is made, all sections in question would belong there.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked RidjalA on his talk page to refrain from discussing perepheral issues such as accusations against me and another of being part of a conspiracy and concentrate on the content here [5] and his. The talk page, and its archives, is filled with ongoing discussions on the subject. I do not believe that we are able to respect each other's opinions and thus this DRN would help alleviate that issue.

How do you think we can help?

You can provide a fresh viewpoint by helping us consider the content in question. Is Silver Wolf Ranch section a controversy? Is the paragraph RidjalA mentioned irrelevant with the rape accusations subsection of the article? Is the Discrimination section in violation of any wiki policy? How should editing in these areas progress? How should we react in light of past RfC's mentioned here?

Your opinions, input, and mediation will help us respect a consensus as opposed to accusing each other.

Opening comments by RidjalA

Firstly, I'd like to thank you (Fordx12 and/or whoever else got this started) for issuing this resolution. I'll try to be as brief as possible.

The book in question is found at academic libraries like this one, so I don't know where they're getting the notion that this book is not a valid source nor that it was never published. Further, its findings are backed up by the L.A. Times. I'd like to point out that Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have gone through suspiciously exhaustive lengths at discrediting this author (an initial rfc created by these two guys a few months back resulted in them being called out for the great lengths they've taken this here). Perhaps they should be a little more careful if they don't want to come off as being paid editors on behalf of La Luz del Mundo.

For the past year now, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have in an Orwellian fashion attempted to silence me for procluding their progress in ridding the article of its data and sources that bring to light numerous controversies. Certainly, like all other religious articles with their respective controversy sections, we have ensured that the information is balanced. So I don't agree that we should do away with this religion's controversy section.

As for the rfc to merge the controversy section with another section (or to do away with it altogether), no solid consensus was ever established; opinions were all over the place, and I'm not comfortable with Fordx12's hasty proclamation here that we should proceed to do away with the controversy section anyway.

And whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch Controversy belongs in the controversy section has been established by an uninvolved 3o after Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore first attempted to remove that section. Here, that 3o helped us establish that there exists a "genuine controversy" surrounding Silver Wolf Ranch and that it should suffice for it to stay.

Finally, the antithesis to the controversy section that these guys created (the "Discrimination" section) is loosely based on quarrels between locals and church members following a political disagreement, and not about religious-based discrimination like the section tries to convey. There's undue weight there in my opinion. Same goes for this chunk of info here.

Respectfully yours, RidjalA (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ajaxfiore

There's no need to discuss matters that have already been solved by RfCs such as the reliability of Jorge Erdely as a source (by the way, the source RidjalA mentions was not the source in question). The content that RidjalA wants to remove is relevant, and should remain. In response to RidjalA's accusations, I have never attempted to remove the Silver Wolf Ranch or the Controversy section, and have in fact expanded it.

Note: I have opened a case at AN/I regarding the conduct of RidjalA. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by WikiNuevo

Opening comments by Darkwind

I am only tangentially involved; WikiNuevo (t c) posted on my talk page requesting me to look into the situation on the page, specifically regarding his contributions being reverted. I'm not sure why he reached out directly to me -- possibly he saw an administrative action I took at AIV or something. I saw that both he and Ajaxfiore (t c) had violated 3RR, and that neither user's edits were clear vandalism, so as an uninvolved admin, I blocked both for 24 hours as a consequence. I took no position on the content dispute, and still have no position regarding that (and for that reason, I am not likely to participate further in this filing). —Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo discussion

• I will take a look at this tomorrow night. If any other volunteer wants to take a look too at any given time before I do, s/he is welcomed to do so. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I have read a bit. I will read another bit before asking some questions. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I think I can start this tomorrow. Sorry for the wait. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note For personal purposes, I won't be able to help solving this DRN case anymore. I offer my most sincere apologies and leave the thread open for any other volunteer. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. I am new to WP:DRN so while I am acting as a volunteer, my suggestions and input should also probably be taken with a grain of salt, and I would even go so far as to say that minimal or no action should be taken on the part of the involved parties based solely on my reading of the issue -- please at least allow an opportunity for a more experienced volunteer to weigh in.

I can say that there are a few things that immediately jump out at me. First among these is the rhetoric employed by RidjalA, which in many cases seems quite clearly to be intended as personal attacks, and when not ignored, it is quite reasonably, and civilly, pointed out by those attacked. At minimum, I would suggest that RidjalA should ratchet down the rhetoric ("Orwellian") and redouble their efforts to assume good faith.

The approach of a separate criticism section in general seems to be straightforwardly discouraged by WP:CRIT.

It is difficult to fully dig into the content dispute here, as it appears complex, with a long history. I will likely need more time to dig in before making content-based suggestions.

Again, while keeping in mind the fact that I am a noob, I do feel like a user conduct RfC might be a more appropriate venue for this ongoing dispute; progress on the content issue appears to me (on this cursory reading) to be prevented by the behavior I have described. Again, I may have more to say in a day or two. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you input UseTheCommandLine. An RfC/U was opened a while ago but it received little attention.[6] The case at AN/I also received little attention and was archived.[7] Leaving user conduct aside, the content disputes are the following: (I think)

• What to do with the Controversy section. RidjalA wants to keep it as is.[8]
• The use of a dubious, sensational source in the article.[9] Most editors agreed it shouldn't be used, while RidjalA keeps reintroducing it.[10]
• RidjalA wants to remove a chunk of sourced information in the article.[11] This information consists of POVs regarding sexual abuse accusations. The first POV was introduced long ago by Maunus,[12] RidjalA has since then tried to remove this.[13]
• The Silver Wolf Ranch section, which RidjalA introduced here. RidjalA's extremely biased addition was eventually modified to this. However RidjalA keeps trying to make it seem as though the ranch was secretly purchased using church money and is being used for tax evasion purposes.[14] RidjalA believes the church leader "accumulates private wealth and lives lavishly", and his lifestyle is "paid for by his poor (figuratively and literally) followers' offerings." The church leader is therefore "pocketing the profits instead of properly distributing all of the wealth like Jesus would have done."[15]

Take your time, no need to rush when Valentine's Day is around the corner. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA, is this an accurate characterization, in your view, of the subjects at issue here?

I realize this is somewhat of a tangent but I do think it is applicable. I suspect one of the reasons the RfC/U did not get any volunteer attention was because of its timing. Setting that aside, another reason I think I can safely say it did not get attention is because of its length. In the RfC/U guidelines, it does suggest that a complete and thorough accounting of every infraction is not necessary, and to focus on the most substantial issues. The length, of both the RfC/U and the current DRN issue, serve to dissuade editors with limited time from stepping in, because of the requisite amount of reading and backstory.

Bringing that around to the current content disputes, it seems like there is a lot to be worked through. I would venture a guess that part of this is because issues have accumulated over time without being resolved, and now there are many issues to deal with, battle lines have been drawn.

So I guess my question, to both RidjalA and Ajaxfiore (and anyone else involved in this dispute who wants to chime in) is:

Which one of these is most important to address now? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment What is most important right now is doing what both RfC´s in the current talk page have decided: remove the questionable source and its content and to either remove the controversy section or converting it into a "public image" type section. I just described the RfC´s. I am not ready to provide my opinion on what exactly what to do untill others state what they´d wish to do. Fordx12 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine I realize that length was an issue as well, I found this essay WP:TL;DR helpful. I now realize that by enumerating every infraction, it seemed like an overreaction. Anyway, I agree with Fordx12 that we should do as the RfCs say. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Add the wording of the Silver Wolf Ranch section to that, RidjalA seems reluctant to allow his accusations to be removed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted on RidjalA's talk page, and mentioned that there is an open dispute here, and that his input would be appreciated. Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to say we should limit discussion to the most important issues, and not the Silver Wolf Ranch for the moment. Too many issues at once makes things hard to keep track of.

To recap, the RfCs are:

• RfC: Should the Controversies section be merged into the History section?
• RfC: Is Revista Academica a reliable source?

Since these are two separate issues, I think it's important to ask, which of these is most important to address now?

Alright, sorry about that. Actually the second RfC is Talk:La Luz del Mundo#RfC: Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?, although Jorge Erdely also contributes to the Revista Académica. I personally believe this is the most important at the moment. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Before we move on, I'm hoping to clear some things up. I'm short on time until tomorrow evening or so, so I'll give just a brief summary of what I think needds to be done or not done.

First, let me reiterate that opinions on that RfC to consolidate the Controversy section resulted in mixed opinions. So no, it should not be merged or removed for the lack of strong support. Also, although having a controversy section is somewhat discouraged, in general articles on religion seem to be exceptions to that guideline (consider Scientology; in fact, Scientology's controversy section is much closer towards the beginning of that article).

All I ask is for Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 to refrain from removing sourced information and replacing it with other sourced information that is less relevant to the topic like so. It's that simple. These edit patterns are the basis of our problems. I know that some of this data may seem controversial (sexual abuse, private wealth, etc) to anyone who belongs to that sect, but it is nonetheless data that was reserched by journalists and actuated by the press and other publishers.

I also want to point out that I'm not the only one who reserves pretty strong suspicious about Ajaxfiore's attempts at removing Erdely as a source. You should take a second to read the response on that RfC that Ajaxfiore issued against me. I hope this helps dispel the presumption that the request was closed due to poor timing. Best, RidjalA (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA I think it is best to look at the whole discussion at AN/I not a single comment (without evidence) by an editor.[16] One could also make the argument that your attempt to reintroduce Erdely and replace reliable sources with Erdely's false claims seems suspicious. You can accuse me of being a member of the religious organization, I can accuse you of being a member of Erdely's cult. Personal attacks will get us nowhere. Although editors provided different opinions, most editors agreed that the controversy section should not remain as is. Furthermore poor quality articles such as the Scientology article should not be used as a model for this article, but instead we should use good quality articles such as the Jehovah's Witnesses article.

As for the RfC on the reliability of Jorge Erdely, you have been the lone dissenting voice and your only arguments have been unfounded accusations such as "Ajaxfiore is a member of the church", "Ajaxfiore's actions are suspicious", "Ajaxfiore this, Ajaxfiore that." Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• RidjalA, if you are unable or unwilling to refrain from personal attacks, veiled though they might be, then I fear that we will be unable to deal with the legitimate content dispute(s). Unfortunately, WP:DRN does not handle conduct disputes, so we would be unable to proceed here. I would also like to urge everyone involved here not to respond to personal attacks in any way. Please trust that they will be seen and noted, even if they are not acknowledged directly.
• Would it be possible for everyone involved in this dispute to refrain from editing the La Luz del Mundo page for at least 48 hours, or until this dispute is settled? I think that is a reasonable starting point. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can be childish at times. I had already suggested that we refrain from editing the article in the talk page,[17] but resumed editing when RidjalA did. I shall now stop editing until the DRN case closes. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I will be closing this discussion in 24 hours unless it receives additional comment from users other than Ajaxfiore. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've stated my opinion that the sources are valid, I don't know what else to say. The fact that journalists published about possible corruption in that church's leadership does not make them "sensationalist" reporters (in fact this is a journalist's duty). The sources in question are L.A. Times, Revista Academica, San Antonio News, et al; we're not talking about your local supermarket tabloid magazines here. I ask that we clarify that we may continue using these sources so that those few users sympathetic to the church could cease from hampering with the information contained therein. Cheers, RidjalA (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• You forgot to include Jorge Erdely Graham in that list. As far as know, no editor has questioned the Los Angeles Times. Could you be a bit more specific? What sources fall under et al.? Are you referring to established scholars like Dormady, De la Torre, and Fortuny or to the anti LLDM blogs and websites you have introduced? As for the San Antonio Express News, various editors have expressed concerns regarding it.[18] I'm fine with what TheBlueCanoe suggested here.

In order to move forward with this DRN case, it would be best if you responded to the questions posed by UseTheCommandLine. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• BlueCanoe made that suggestion so that we not use quotations to call lldm followers minions, as one source referred to them. And I'm sorry, but "Blogs"? What blogs?

So my response to the issues at hand: Ajaxfiore has inexhaustibly tried to remove the entire controversy section for almost over a year now(and hence the long history on this sole issue), and I am still resolute in my response. For as long as sources exist that detail the existence of notable controversies surrounding that sect (private wealth, sex abuse scandals, scrutiny for potential of mass suicide), it should suffice for them to stay on wikipedia. RidjalA (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion at this point is that because Erdely's allegations have been written about (I read spanish poquito y mal, so I have not evaluated non-English sources) by others in the mass media, specifically the LA times article, they are notable as allegations and deserve inclusion in the article. However, the current section seems to me to be a straightforward example of placing undue weight on the allegations, and cites the LA times article 12 times in the quite large criticism section (once under "Discrimination" and 11 times in "Controversy"). The LA Times article is one of the most frequently cited references in the article.

I believe that the controversy section, even if it remains a separate section (and I think it should actually be integrated into other sections eventually, per WP:CRITICISM), should be reduced in size by at least 50%. Readers can check the LA Times article if they feel like it; I would be comfortable with a single three or four sentence paragraph for a controversy section, and feel like this is both achievable, and that a controversy section of this size would be much more readily integrated into the rest of the article. There is no need to repeat every claim in the LA Times article, and the size of it in my opinion makes it read like less of a summation with link than a paraphrase and potential copyvio. There clearly exists the same danger with the Silver Wolf Ranch section.

The bottom line here, for me, is that all involved parties, if they agree that this is a reasonable goal, must be willing to let bygones be bygones. I continue to be uncomfortable with RidjalA's accusations, even after this kind of uncivil behavior is pointed out repeatedly, and feel like the hostile environment this creates is a serious danger to further progress (see WP:MASTODONS).

I would remind everyone that participation in WP:DRN is voluntary, and if any parties are unwilling to engage this process civilly and in good faith please let me know; I would rather not waste my time and just close this dispute if that's the case.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to this; it seems like a good idea. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies RidjalA, I got confused between you and an anon who added blogs. Nonetheless, you did add an anti lldm site and allowed the blogs to stay. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your last sentence is all that productive either, you may want to consider striking it. Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past perceived wrongs, or even pointing them out. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh. In this case, the past is the enemy of progress on this article. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I could work on a smaller much more concise version of the section in my sandbox and then link it here for consideration. I did that with the History section once before and it worked well. However, I refuse to go against the RfC that clearly indicated that Erdely's unpublished book cannot be used as a valid source for contentious material. I do not wish to add that source and the content it is used to support, unless more reliable sources support it. Fordx12 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in. I think this could be a useful way for proposing changes in the future on contentious material like this -- work on it in a sandbox, post it on the talk page, and solicit discussion.

My reading of WP:N, WP:RS and a recent discussion I had at WP:RSN lead me to believe that you should not repeat Erdely's allegations as factual, certainly. However, since they have been repeated in the mass media, specifically in the LA Times article, my reading of WP:NPOV suggests that the criticisms should be mentioned as allegations. This is different from reporting them as fact. The way in which they are presented, again as allegations rather than as fact. makes quite a bit of difference. Please also see the essay WP:ENEMY.

Is there any of this that does not make sense to you? I would welcome further discussion.

I also want to reiterate the point that if any parties are unwilling to make good faith efforts to resolve this dispute, then I will have to close this dispute as "failed"; It has already gone on much longer than most WP:DRN cases, possibly owing to my inexperience. I mention this because Fordx12's statement upthread, "refuse to", suggests an unwillingness to proceed with this process. If that is the case, please let me know so that I may use my time on other WP:DRN disputes.

And because we have not heard from RidjalA for some time, and he or she seems to be a key player in this dispute, I will notify them that, and if we do not hear from them within 24 hours I will need to close this dispute.

Thanks to everyone Ajaxfiore, Fordx12, ridjalA, and Darkwind for your good faith efforts in participating so far. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think now we can take this back to the talk page and do as Fordx12 and UseTheCommandLine suggested. Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment was misunderstood. What it meant was that I do not agree that the input of the community regarding rules of source reliability, neutrality, and notability should be ignored as RidjalA desires. The source and content in question is about the Church having some sort of ties to a political party in Mexico and enough wealth to be able to get away with the crimes that the source accuses the Church of. It is contentious content, not backed up by other sources (the conclusion anyway) provided by a unpublished/self published source from an individual that lacks academic notability and cannot be considered an expert on the Church (as all users in the RfC all said, minus RidjalA). It'd be like me agreeing that we should include the following into the article "The Church is the true Christian church because it is lead by an Apostle of God elected by Jesus Christ." And then source it to a magazine published by the Church. It is against Wiki policy.

It doesn't mean that I am unwilling to move forward, just that I am unwilling to violate wiki policy. I am currently in the process of preparing the first version of the edited controversy section. Fordx12 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Among the policies I think you're referring to, there are very few bright-line rules. So I interpret your statement that you are "unwilling to violate wiki policy" as a statement that you are unwilling to proceed, fullstop (though I would like to be wrong about this). Noone is suggesting violating a bright-line rule here. The Erdely allegation about political influence does not appear to me to violate, say, WP:BLP bright-line policies. Maybe there are others I'm not aware of, and would welcome further input if this is your understanding of things, i.e. that there is a bright-line rule that would be violated by including the Erdely's allegations of influence.

At the same time, I see your concerns. If the allegations of a conspiracy do not appear in enough secondary sources to be notable themselves, then yes, my reading is that they are WP:FRINGE and should not be included. So far as I can tell, they do not. If someone can demonstrate these allegations in reliable sources, even as allegations, then the allegations are notable and should be mentioned. But as noted, I see no evidence of that, so as far as I'm concerned they should not. Is this clearer?

And although I would like to wait until I get either a response from RidjalA before closing this, i think in the absence of that this discussion can continue on the talk page. Unless there's anything else, such as RidjalA raising other opposition, I will mark this matter as closed in the next 24 hours. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are both saying the same thing: Erdely's claims should not be included as facts, but rather as allegations. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2013 (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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Kievan Rus' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rus' Khaganate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lvivske (talk · contribs)
• Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Following the unexplained reverts by User:Ghirlandajo here and here, and being the top contributor to both articles 1/2 - there appears to be a case of page ownership going on.

Also, it has come to my attention that the user has a previous record of such behavior under DIGWUREN

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a warning on their talk page 1 and encouraged talk page use, but it was deleted under the edit summery "rmv nationalist trolling". I have been active on the Kievan Rus' talk page trying to import quotes & sources to help with the article, Ghirlandajo doesn't appear to use the talk page at all despite being a top contributor.

How do you think we can help?

I was hoping to engage in a WP:BOLD cycle of article improvement, but with the 2 reverts now (on directly related content) and the accusation of "trolling", I feel dispute resolution may be necessary, because call it foresight, I see more reverting happening if I try to work on the article based on that tone. Perhaps an admin warning to ensure that I'm not 'trolling' or some measure to ensure this doesn't turn into a WP:3RR nightmare, battleground, etc.

Opening comments by Ghirlandajo

Kievan Rus', Rus' Khaganate 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Indian astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Devanampriya (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)
• Kishorekumar_62 (talk · contribs)
• SteveMcCluskey (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• Nationalist pov pushing editor insists on framing contested theory as scientific fact and refuses to allocate article space to mainstream academic views that challenge this theory.

• Insists on eurocentric narrative to article (i.e.irrelevant mentions of Alexander of Macedon). Article topic is on Indian astronomy, but most of the article is now on theory of greek influence on indian astronomy.

• Good faith attempt at compromise failed--editor actually started debate by threatening to report and by bringing up stale 5 year old unrelated disputes.

• He refuses to give space to discuss mainstream academic works that challenge his preferred theory (developed by now deceased scholar), even if article mentions "minority view". Not even a sentence allowed for a growing "minority view" that challenged editor's preferred scholar in his own time. He attacks Indian scholars as fringe, and doesn't respond to the existence of western scholars who support this minority view.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Good faith attempt at discussing and negotiating a fair and accurate consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_astronomy#Indian_and_Greek_Astronomy

How do you think we can help?

• Advise whether or not even small space (few sentences) can be given to discuss respected minority academic views given clear uncertainty of majority theory.

• Advise whether uncertainty of theory must be included in article wording.

• Define NPOV to clarify acceptable article structure.

Opening comments by Athenean

I actually support this request, though I must deplore Devanampriya's use of epithets ("nationalist", "eurocentric"). He is similarly hostile in the talkpage discussion, having called me a "nationalist" many times, and made all kinds of bad faith allegations, e.g. that I am socking etc...As far as the subject at hand, he says I "refuse to give space to discuss mainstream academic sources", but that is actually not true, I am only against the inclusion of fringe sources like the well known Subhash Kak and the equally fringe B.G. Sidarth [23]. It's also brazenly untrue that I am against Indian sources, in fact I added this scholarly Indian source to the article [24], and he knows this. He derisively refers to David Pingree, the leading scholar of Indian astronomy as "a deceased scholar", while insisting on using a 19th century priest named Anthony Burgess as a source. This combination of hostility and intransigence makes me feel that formal dispute resolution is the only way to resolve this. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I will be busy the next few days and may not edit frequently, but I do intent to pursue this process fully. Athenean (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kishorekumar_62

This dispute pertains to one section of this page, viz. "Global Discourse". I saw that section pretty much said that Indians borrowed their astronomy from the Greeks. I investigated and found that there is much debate on this matter in academic circles. I found that the Ebenezer Burgess, the translator of Surya Siddhnatha (1860) had debated this point with his editor William Whitney, with Burgess for and Whitney against an Indian origin. A hundred years later, there appeared a series of articles by David Pingree in JHA in support of a Greek (and Mesopotamian) origin. Pingree's conclusions have been challenged by Van Der Waerden and Roger Billard in favor of an independent development of Indian astronomy. I have discussed this extensively in the talk page.

I believe that Wikipedia should not hold a brief for one or the other side when an opinion is debated in academic circles. Both sides should be presented. Further, to deny that such an debate exists would be even more misleading.

One proof of the existence of such debate, I present below:

"Recently, two treatise have been published, which will be quoted as (B) and (P): (B) Roger Billard, L'astronomie Indienne... (P) David Pingree, "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India"... The general view of Indian epicyclic astronomy developed in these two treatises are radically difference and cannot be reconciled. If Pingree is right, Billard is wrong, and conversely." - "Two Treatise on Indian Astronomy", B L Van der waerden, Zurich University, Journal for the History of Astronomy, xi (1980):

The same Journal issue also printed a rebuttal from Pingree, which starts as follows:

"Van der waerden presents himself as an arbiter in the controversy concerning Indian astronomy between Roger Billard and myself..." Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SteveMcCluskey

I have only minor interest in this page, which I follow because of my interest in the history of astronomy and have no wish to get involved in a lengthy dispute, but I will briefly add my understanding of the dispute here. When I saw the accusation of a "Nationalist pov pushing editor" I totally agreed, until I saw that the request for dispute resolution had been entered by an editor who, in my opinion, had been the editor chiefly involved in nationalist pov pushing on this article. The underlying issue here is the extent of influences on Indian astronomy, which a minority of nationalist Indian scholars tend to reject, while most historians, of all nationalities, see a complex web of interactions.

The article is plagued by attempts to insert minority opinions, without any comment on their level of acceptance by the scholarly community. Even more seriously, User:Devanampriya has frequently deleted mainstream scholarly material dealing with Greek and other influence on Indian astronomy in a pattern that seems to be edit warring.

In sum, this looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ninthabout

I don't know how this process works, but I would like to offer my two cents on the Sidharth source. I have never edited the Indian astronomy article, but I have been a frequent editor of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. According to Wikipedia, a source is reliable if it is from an expert in a field, and published in an academic book or journal. Sidharth is not an expert in history, and his book was published by a New Age pseudoscience publisher. I have said this on the talk page, but I'll repeat it here. Just take a quick glance at the About Us page of the publisher, "Inner Traditions". It shows works like Pyramid Power, a book on Pyramidology, The Science of Getting Rich, a self help book from the so-called "New Thought Movement" (that inspired the widely criticized New Age film The Secret (2006 film)), The Estrogen Alternative a book on Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and The Mayan Code, a book on "Mayanism", and others. Their list of published books nearly matches the List of pseudosciences. There are much better sources about Indian astronomy by reputable scholars. There's no reason at all that this book should be used.--Ninthabout (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hell in a Bucket

I also have minor involvement in this dispute, my first of which was from a protection board request I came across. There has been plenty of bad faith accusations by Devanampriya[[25]] and an apparent inability to understand that this is a collaborative project where anyone (regardless of block records which he apparently thinks is a big deal and disqualifies an opinion) is welcome to engage in dispute resolution or issue discussion. I think that he may have a better mindset if he disengages for a while rather then edit war "restoring the status quo" that he has apparently set all by his lonesome. I think a little good faith in this would go a long way, rather then making accusations that editors have canvassed for others maybe he can focus on the content and not the contributors which is a key component in our NPA and AGF policies. I think that when he also realizes he doesn't WP:OWN the page we can getter results. I do believe all viewpoints, especially sourced ones should be included in the article to make sure that it is better rounded, accusations of euro centrism and nationalism at least for the moment seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian Astronomy discussion

Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to help with this issue. I have no special authority or power, but I am interested in helping you all find a good resolution. I'm pretty busy today, but let me read the article and the above statements, and then tomorrow I'll post some thoughts & questions. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be some sourcing issues mentioned. I don't recall them having been brought to RSN recently and suggest that that might be a way forward. On the 19th century debate, for example, I think RSN regulars will suggest that this should ideally be taken from a late 20th century or 21st century text that covers that debate. Going straight to the 19th century authors would seem to be a use of primary sources that could too easily lead into bias. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. The issue here is how the article should describe the influence, if any, of Greek astronomy on the development of Indian astronomy. There are some sources that suggest it was major, and others that suggest it was negligible. So, we must decide which sources are reliable, and how both views should be presented in the article. To illustrate the different approaches, here are two versions of the article text (boldface emphasis mine):

Hindu astrology may have been later influenced by Hellenistic astrology during the early centuries of the Common Era, ....By the early centuries of the Common Era, Indo-Greek influence on the Vedanga tradition appears to be probable, with texts such as Romaka Siddhānta.....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India. A number of historians have theorized that it influenced Indian astronomy.

contrasted with

Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy beginning in the 4th century BC and through the early centuries of the Common Era, for example by the Yavanajataka and the Romaka Siddhanta, a Sanskrit translation of a Greek text disseminated from the 2nd century....Greek astronomical ideas began to enter India in the 4th century BC following the conquests of Alexander the Great....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India, where it profoundly influenced the local astronomical tradition.

References which purportedly state the Greek influence include:

• Babylon to Voyager and Beyond: A History of Planetary Astronomy. David Leverington. Cambridge University Press, May 29, 2003 - Science - 568 pages. page 41
• The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. James Evans. Oxford University Press, Oct 1, 1998 - History - 496 pages. Page 393
• Foreign Impact on Indian Life and Culture (c. 326 B.C. to C. 300 A.D.). Satyendra Nath Naskar. Abhinav Publications, Jan 1, 1996 - History - 253 pages. Pages 56-57
• Highlights of Astronomy, Volume 11B: As presented at the XXIIIrd General Assembly of the IAU, 1997. Johannes Andersen Springer, Jan 31, 1999 - Science - 616 pages. page 721
• Pingree, David (1976). "The Recovery of early Greek Astronomy from India". The Journal of History of Astronomy (Science History Publications Ltd.) vii: 109-123

Sources which may deemphasize the Greek influence include:

• "On Astronomy of Ancient India", Subhash C. Kak, Indian Journal of History of Science, 22(3): 205-221 (1987), by Subhash Kak
• The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's ... By B. G. Sidharth
• http://satyavidya.com/yavanas.htm
• Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 43, 1874
• B. L. Van Der Waerden (1980). "Two Treatises on Indian Astronomy". The Journal of History of Astronomy (Science History Publications Ltd.) xi: 50-62.
• L’Astronomie indienne - Roger Billard - 1974
• On the originality of Indian Mathematical Astronomy - Raymond Mercier

On a related note, a major issue in the Talk page is whether the term Yavana means Greeks specifically, or could include additional non-Indian persons.

Question for parties - Could the parties pick the two strongest sources from each "side" and provide the quotes from the sources that illustrate the sources' position on this issue? Bear in mind that academic sources are superior to non-academic; modern superior to older; and experts superior to non-experts. Post the quotes here in this DRN case below (keep it brief to avoid copyright violations). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Noleander, as your framed it above, the debate essentially centered around the pingree paradigm of certainty of greek influence pushed by certain parties. The other users as you can see on the talk page, refused a reasonable reframed article structure of pingree (most of "influence" subsection), billard/ohashi/mercier (some), and sidharth/kak/burgess (which would receive little treatment even in our proposal--we clearly said this). Here are the requested quotes (with some additional background points):

Yukio Ohashi is probably the strongest for supporting the Billard theory of uncertainty of this greek influence. Here is the source as well as key quotes:

p.156, “The extent of Greek influence is, however, still controversial.”

p.157: “Astronomy was developed in India in its own way in this period, and established itself as an independent discipline.” And “the classical Siddhanta period was itself rather free from foreign influence”.

Raymond Mercier is useful for explaining the technical reasons for the problems with the prevailing Pingree paradigm:

p.4 "Pingree, faced with these results of Billard continued to argue that Āryabhaṭa must nevertheless have found a way to derive his mean longitudes from earlier, essentially Greek, results.6 He was never willing to accept that Āryabhaṭa, or indeed any other Indian astronomer, had been able to make observations, or had been able to reduce these to obtain such accurate mean longitudes. It is however plainly impossible to create mean longitudes many centuries before the year 500 which could somehow be in such very precise agreement with observations at just this time, but not in neighbouring years."

p.4 “There is, of course, an immensely difficult, and as yet unsolved, historical problem remaining, namely to discover the continuity in the transmission to India of the Greek theoretical framework. It is to be emphasized that the Indian theoretical schemes are different in a number of details from anything known in Greek sources (see Ch. 8.f, above).”

p.18 "For, the synodic differences being in agreement, then this disagreement in the Sun would carry over to the other means. Pingree, it would appear, wants us to ignore this, although it is fundamental to any consideration of whether ot not the Indians copied from a Greek source. There remain still the differences of the order of 1 degree between some of the Greek and Indian synodic differences. The disagreement of about 2 degrees in the Moon (even after correcting Pingree’s arithmetic at this point) just corresponds to the difference 2;44.Finally, in my extension of Billard’s approach, where the optimum meridian is established jointly with the year it is found that for these Indian systems the optimum meridan lies well within India, strongly reinforcing the view that we are dealing with real observational control in India”

p.20 “Billard’s scientific analysis of many canons included the proof that the mean longitudes of the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta were established in the seventh century, and so were certainly the work of Brahmagupta, as he claimed. This destroyed the keystone of Pingree’s reconstruction.”

p.20 "Pingree has always been adamant that the Indian astronomers never seriously carried out observations, and in this he has simply followed the consensus, which goes back to Colebrooke. He never attempted to meet head on either Billard’s argument, or my extension of it to the meridian determination. Indeed he simply ignores that level of scientific investigation."

In essence, this represents the obvious uncertainty associated with pingree's theories (which he drew from the colonial period)--the crux of our dispute.

In order to touch on theories of reverse influence (indian influence on greek astronomy), Sidharth is the strongest, given that he is an astronomer, has a ph.d. in computational physics, director general of a respected planetarium, and has presented multiple international papers on astronomer that have been well received (his views are distinct from Ohashi/Mercier who simply argue uncertainty regarding greek influence, validate Billard's work (which Van der Waerden also did), and for pointing out the problem's with Pingree).

Sidharth's primary use however was in supporting claims of hindu astronomical theories on the spherical shape of the earth--at one time proposed by western scholars such as Ebenezer Burgess, but now recently renewed by Kak and Sidharth. Sidharth's inclusion would naturally be prefaced as a distinct spectrum of view outside the present academic mainstream (we've said this repeatedly), and would have been limited to a sentence or two (sidenote: his work uses endnotes rather than footnotes). I won't provide quotes because the two main sources are ohashi and mercier (who challenge pingree's greek influence certainty paradigm). Sidharth merely provides an ancillary view in what is actually a complex spectrum of academic views. He makes for useful reading in his short intro (p.15) and on the subchapter specifically on Contributions to Scientific thought regarding hindus and greeks(starting on p.34)

I would also like to note that Mitra (asia society journal) is useful for understanding the controversy surrounding the colonial interpretation of the sanskrit word yavana. His comprehensive, multi-page analysis of it, has not been matched in other sources we have seen. As you can see from the puranic encyclopedia I provided on the talk page--yavana traditionally referred to subcontinental peoples who warred with and were conquered by hindu mythological figures. It was later used for foreigners including various middle eastern peoples, caliphate arabs, greco-romans, and foreigners in general--that's why it must be treated with caution. I won't provide quotes, to avoid take up too much more space, but I just wanted to point out the importance of us understanding how this word has been stretched for questionable historical purposes due to lack of understanding. Hope this all helps--thank you. Regards Devanampriya (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Devanampriya: Could you provide the academic credentials/background/specialty of Ohashi and Mercier? Also could you provide brief quotes from Billard which summarize his position (translated into English, if necessary). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Noleander, per your request here is the background info on Yukio Ohashi and Raymond Mercier

• Yukio Ohashi earned his ph.d in Philosophy in Mathematics at Lucknow University, India in 1992, and completed the doctoral course at Hitotsubashi University, Japan in Social History of the East (see p.634). He is presently a member of the International Astronomical Union and is on its commission for the history of astronomy.

• (Raymond Mercier. Mercier was/is notably on the journal for the history of astronomy and appears to be a retired (ctrl f "mercier") affiliated lecturer in the Cambridge University Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science and was formerly on the Mathematic faculty at the University of Southampton.

Brief Billard Quotes:

p. 217 “At first there is this set of observations just discovered underlying the Aryabhatiya’s canon. Obviously, Aryabhata having related nothing about them, at first our mathematical device can only prove that the e observations were contemporaneous with him, while he was about thirty-five years old. Yet, once acquainted with his work, care and spirit, one would guess what is provided by several ways: Aryabhata carried out himself so wonderful observations, as we shall see immediately, thanks to another radiography of his work”.

p.222 “They are different Gaussian curves delimiting the epoch of the observations, undoubtedly carried out by Aryabhata himself, while he was thirty to thirty-nine years old.“

p.222 “Not only did Aryabhata construct yuga upon such beautiful reductions of observations, but I must add that almost certainly the great astronomer is also responsible for the very introduction of yuga speculation into mathematical astronomy.”

p.222 “We have here the bundle of the canon free from speculation and a far better one than the bundle of the Almagest’s canon [of Ptolemy].”

p.224 “In conclusion, I wish these discoveries, will be soon understood and everybody will be able to see what was verily the Indian astronomy, how admirable an astronomer was Aryabhata, why exactly he is the leading figure of such a history. I hope furthermore he will soon be acknowledged as one of the greatest astronomers of the past and, in consideration of his rigour and probity even within error, as a paragon of science.”

p.224 “I wish all the scholars of the field will improve these studies more and more Because I think the history of Indian astronomy to be as a whole the most extraordinary monument of history of sciences, a very epistemology by its very self and perhaps the most enlightening knowledge of a man’s search for knowledge.”

In addition, Van Der Waerden doesn't stake a position in his presentation of the facts--but merely validates Billard's methodology and consents to that chronology. In effect he says, either Billard is right or Pingree is right--and then states that Billard's methodology is sound. The predictable premature triumphal claims of the other side, aside, Van der waerden was not cited for the meaning of the word yavana, but rather, to provide an objective third party to validate Billard's work and methodology. It should be emphasized that the sanskrit scholars--not astronomers--are best placed to interpret the meaning of sanskrit words and terms (as would be the case for latin, greek, etc). Unlike the sources provided by the other side, Rajendralal Mitra was an actual scholar of sanskrit (and other languages) who translated a number of works into english, served as secretary and President of the British Asiatic Society of Bengal, and edited numerous journal articles as well as famous indologist Max Mueller's sanskrit translation work, hence his objection to the exclusive association of the word yavana as well as the erroneous association with the siddhanta literature with the greeks (including yavanajataka)--supported by Yukio Ohashi, as quoted above. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noleander. I think Van Der Waerden's statements about Pingree are criticism of Pingree's approach viz. Pingree's analysis of Aryabhata's methodology and they do not constitute a rebuttal of the Greek influence on Indian astronomy. In addition much ado has been made about the term "Yavana" as not meaning "Ionian" and, by extension, "Greek". Well, let us consider the following writings by Van Der Waerden et al.:

<ref name="WaerdenHuber1973">((cite book|author1=B L Van Der Waerden|author2=Peter Huber|title=Science Awakening II|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=S_T6Pt2qZ5YC&pg=PA305|accessdate=18 February 2013|date=31 December 1973|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-90-01-93103-2|page=305|quote=Right at the beginning of our section on the Vasistha-Siddantha we have quoted a passage from the astrological poem Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja. The word Yavana in the title of the poem means Ionian, or Greek in general. According to Pingree the poem goes back to a Greek astrological composition written in Alexandria in the first half of the second century AD., which was translated into Sanskrit by Yavanesvara about 150. Another Greek astrological text was also translated in the second century. It seems that later Indian horoscopy was based on these two Sanskrit translations.))</ref>

From the horse's Van Der Waerden's mouth, we have conclusive proof that indeed he: a. agrees with Pingree about Greek influence on Indian horoscopy and b. states that "Yavana" does indeed mean "Greek". I trust since the opposition find Van Der Waerden to be such a reliable source the matter may be settled. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also please see collapsed section for:

As an additional comment, expressions of the type (in italics): ...appears to be probable, with texts such as Romaka Siddhānta.....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India. A number of historians have theorized that it influenced Indian astronomy. are typical fillers, full of original research and weasel words with the intent of minimising the majority academic opinion and maximising doubt about it at the same time. And this does not include the complete disappearance of any mention of Yavanajataka from the edit of the opposition, despite the overwhelming reliably-sourced academic evidence supporting its inclusion in the article. However, unlike the opposition, I am not interested in assigning any epithets to the practitioners of such editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr K: could you (or anyone) provide some brief quotes from Pingree which summarize his position? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Noleander. I'll try to get some quotes online. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is Pingree's paper: Title: The Recovery of Early Greek Astronomy from India Authors: Pingree, D. Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 7, p.109 Bibliographic Code: 1976JHA.....7..109P. In it he analyses the Greek influence on Indian Astronomy, which he finds extensive, including the Yavanajataka and other such works and also critiques Aryabatha's work saying that he used Greek astronomical tables for his work. His critique of Aryabatha's work starts on page 115 and continues on to 120, 121 etc. His comments about Yavanajataka and similar works are on pages 109-115 and perhaps after page 121 but I could not reach those pages at this time at the Harvard website. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) Pingree's work is perhaps the most cited in this field [26]. He has authored numerous papers on the subject, for example The Recovery of early Greek astronomy from India [27], On the Greek origin of the Indian planetary system employing a double epicycle [28] and so on. In his History of Mathematical Astronomy in India, he states "That Indian astronomy was not completely static is due almost entirely to the repeated intrusion of theories from the West. Five times have such intrusions occurred. In the 5th century BC from Mesopotamia via Iran; In the second and third centuries BC from Mesopotamia via Greece; in the fourth century AD directly from Greece; in the ten to eighteenth centuries from Iran; and in the nineteenth century from England. It is precisely this foreign influence that Hindu nationalists exemplified by Kak and Sidarth try to hide and minimize. I also note that neither Mercier nor Ohashi dispute that there was Greek influence in Indian astronomy. They argue that the extent of this influence is subject to debate, but both categorically state that there was Greek influence in Indian astronomy. Mercier: So in the time of Āryabhaṭa, although we have a theoretical framework that is essentially Greek in character, employing for example trigonometry that is indisputably Greek in origin... and There is, of course, an immensely difficult, and as yet unsolved, historical problem remaining, namely to discover the continuity in the transmission to India of the Greek theoretical framework.. Nowhere does he state that there was no Greek influence, just that it's continuity is not obvious. Mercier's work moreover focuses on a very particular technical aspect of Greek influence in Indian astronomy, certainly not the relationship between Greek and Indian astronomies as a whole. Similarly Ohashi states Prior to this classical Siddhanta period, Greek astrology and astronomy were introduced to India. I don't see how it could be any clearer. To suggest that Mercier and Ohashi deny any Greek influence on Indian astronomy is highly intellectually dishonest and a misuse of these sources.

Similarly, Ohashi clearly states that "Yavana" refers to Greeks "This Yavana must be Alexandria". Devanampriya seems to think that a) Ohashi is good enough to deny Greek influence on Indian astronomy, but b) not good enough for the meaning of "Yavana". a) is not even true, and even if it were, he can't have it both ways. Either Ohashi is reliable (which he is), or he isn't.

Van der Waerden and Billiard are similarly misused. Neither disputes that there was Greek influence in Indian astronomy, they merely debate the extent. Billiard questions whether there was Greek influence on a particular aspect of Arybhata's work, but does not suggest there was no Greek influence on Indian astronomy as a whole. Van der Waerden endorses Billiard on this particular question, but explicitly states that there was Greek influence on Indian astronomy in general, as Dr. K. demonstrated above. Athenean (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I could go on and on. The list of sources that mention Greek influence on Indian astronomy is virtually endless [41]. To sum up, it seems that the presence of Greek astronomical ideas in Indian astronomy is the consensus among scholarly sources, both astronomical and Indological. It is only the extent of this influence that is debated. I do note that several of these sources are Indian, and that several in fact mention that this influence began with Alexander's the Great's conquests, mention of which Devanampriya wants removed at all costs. Arrayed against this we have nothing but the usual Hindu nationalist non-historians like Kak and Sidarth, angrily denying any foreign influence on Indian astronomy, per the dictates of Hindu nationalist ideology. Here is what people at WP:RAN had to say about Siddarth [42] [43] [44]. All historical astronomical traditions were influenced by the traditions of older cultures. Greek astronomy was influenced by Babylonian astronomy, and both in turn influenced Indian astronomy. To suggest that Indian astronomy "may or may not have been" influenced by Greek astronomy flies in the face not only of what we know about Indian astronomy itself, but also the nature of the transmission of ideas in the history of science as well. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Similarly Ohashi states Prior to this classical Siddhanta period, Greek astrology and astronomy were introduced to India. I don't see how it could be any clearer. To suggest that Mercier and Ohashi deny any Greek influence on Indian astronomy is highly intellectually dishonest and a misuse of these sources."

No, Ohashi and Mercier were cited because they severely criticize Pingree and push back at the paradigm he offered. They were the strongest and most eloquent at this, thereby supporting our point about "uncertainty". They provided the scientific/mathematical basis for Sidarth (whom I also cited). Athenean and friends have been pushing Pingree as the unquestioned high priest in this field. Billard, Ohashi, and Mercier all blew planet-sized holed in Pingree's paradigm of heavy greek influence on Indian astronomy. Mercier specifically said this about Pingree:

"Billard's demonstration that the mean longitudes of the Āryabhaṭīya were in striking agreement with the true state of the Sun, Moon and planets just around A.D.510, and must therefore have been founded on observations by Āryabhaṭa, was therefore in plain contradiction with Pingree's views. There were as well a number of other beliefs of Pingree that were destroyed by Billard's discoveries. From that time Pingree continued to pour abuse on Billard's work, beginning with a review in the J. Roy. Asiatic Soc.

I have little doubt that if Billard's discovery had been made by Neugebauer, or by Pingree himself, it would have been splashed across the front pages and hailed as a great discovery by the Brown school. As things went, its rejection by Pingree and his followers is nothing but naked politics. Over the decades since that time Pingree's influence has been felt in a wide circle of his disciples, who have uncritically repeated his views. This is seen clearly, for example, in Kim Plofker's Mathematics in India, 2009, as far as it refers to Indian astronomy, where on the one hand she recites uncritically Pingree's narrative of the origins of the Indian canons, and on the other does her best to rubbish Billard's results...This subservience to Pingree's views has somehow induced people in the community to ignore the obligation to read his work in a critical spirit. "

"To suggest that Mercier and Ohashi deny any Greek influence on Indian astronomy is highly intellectually dishonest and a misuse of these sources."

Where was this suggested? Point it out. I specifically said Ohashi describes uncertainty of such theories (even the only quote you could cough up from him said "introduced" which in english does not mean "influenced". I said this about Mercier: "Raymond Mercier is useful for explaining the technical reasons for the problems with the prevailing Pingree paradigm:". But of course, for Athenean, this specifically means I said they stated x position. Which I did not. I will touch on this more below.

In addition, I specifically offered this quote from Ohashi:"p.156, “The extent of Greek influence is, however, still controversial.”"

On the same page, he also points how Billard also demonstrated that the astronomical calculations were actually conducted in India, not Greece, and thus, pokes a hole in Pingree’s theory that all the classical siddhanthas were greek derived. This cherrypicking of sources is what has been problematic in dealing with Athenean and friends.

Most astonishingly, Athenean attempts to pass off this ridiculous fraud about Ohashi: "Ohashi clearly states that "Yavana" refers to Greeks "This Yavana must be Alexandria".

What Athenean attempted to keep from you, however, was that Ohashi was actually explaining Pingree's theory!! because the paragraph begins as follows in the second sentence: "According to David Pingree, a Greek astrological text was translated into prose Sanskrit by Yavanesvara...". The paragraph then ends with this; “The process of Greek influence of astronomy into India is discussed by several people, notably David Pingree. The extent of Greek influence is, however, still controversial.” 155-156. The entire paper Ohashi works on is astronomical influence in the siddhantas--not the influence of greek astronomy on indian astronomy. That's why Ohashi's pushback on Pingree's attribution of the Indian astronomical siddhantas to the greeks carries weight, since he specifically denies foreign influence on the siddhantas.

In it's quest to shift goal posts, the other side seems to be missing the point by engaging in the very intellectual dishonesty they claim to decry. This dispute is about certainty. Ohashi's point is clearly relevant, because scholars such as Kak, Sidharth, and Burgess all argued the reverse claiming Indian influence on Greek astronomy. Ohashi himself is ambivalent regarding influence and offers limited specifics. Mercier's position is "some, but the jury's still out and Pingree is hogwash, relying on personality to perpetuate his theories rather than science like Billard". Above all, Ohashi is crystal clear that the siddhanta period, which the Pingree relies on for his theories, is free from foreign influence (so the other side is clearly cherry picking Ohashi's position).

Mercier says this as well on p.1: "Nevertheless we continue to have disputes about the very nature of the subject, illustrating the fact, I suppose, that Indian astronomy is never quite what it seems to be."

Ohashi and Mercier emphasize how Pingree's construct has serious problems and his rebuttal to billard was intellectully bankrupt.

None of this means that Ohashi and Mercier have broken new ground. But the pushback is clear as we saw especially with Ohashi, who disputed foreign influence in the siddhanta period (which is precisely what we're dealing with-- romaka siddhanta, pulisa siddhanta for which Athenean & Friends pass of as only having one possible meaning i.e. "Doctrine of Rome, Doctrine of Paul". Which is incorrect, Mitra and S.R. Das, who wrote "The alleged Greek influence on Hindu astronomy"" and was cited by one of Athenean's own sources in the article) All this demonstrates that there remains serious uncertainty about the prevailing colonial era paradigm in this field.

If the moderator recalls, we specifically offered the same proposal on the talk page we offered here: Majority (pingree), Minority (ohashi/mercier), then Kak/Sidharth/Burgess. The point was to touch on the entire academic spectrum given that the narrative itself is in a renewed state of flux, and the article should portray this.

The other side also does not seem to grasp the distinction between "introduction of greek astronomy" and "influence or adoption" of astronomy. Introduction of a school of knowledge does not confirm influence and only leaves the door open to conjecture. Ohashi's own writing demonstrates his ambivalence, but Athenean falls back on intellectual dishonesty to erroneous state confirmation of Ohashi's views on greek influence.

Finally, on what basis is the claim to smear Sidharth as a hindu nationalist based on? Mercier himself noted that Pingree was drawing directly from eurocentric colonial scholars like colebrook--who overemphasized greek influence to parallel the then fashionable european civilizing mission. What is even the basis for the accusation against a respected international astronomer like sidharth? Was Ebenezer Burgess a hindu nationalist too? Funny how the other side has no problem pushing Pingree's euro-centric narrative which went to the extreme extent of even denying the ability of Indian astronomers to make scientific observation, but Sidharth is suddenly objectionable?

Since Athenean and friends recognize that Sidharth's credentials are solid, they have to resort to smear and guilt by association tactics. Is sidharth's work questioned? No. Are scholars brought in to rebut his work as I brought in Ohashi and Mercier? No. They brand him a hindu nationalist--with no evidence--and then attempt to again misrepresent this dispute. Funny how they don't have a problem with colonial euro-centric theories.

Finally, the point about Alexander is a valid one. Athenean added that in there while we were attempting to negotiate a resolution to the dispute. This would be like a turk adding "Conquest of Greece" every time greek culture or learning were mentioned. This is particularly concerning given that the indo-greeks, the polity connected with theories of influence on indian astronomy was almost 200 years after alexander. But such specifics are obviously inconvenient for the other side.

In sum, this entire dispute is about "certainty".

The opposition seems to think an entire source must outright state our position verbatim. This is incorrect. Ohashi and Mercier are not nor have ever been confused with Sidharth or Kak (the record here clearly demonstrates this). But Ohashi and Mercier demonstrate the serious problems with Pingree's paradigm which the latter managed to perpetuate through force of personality rather than science--despite Billard's work. Sidharth and Kak recognize this and push back at the entire Pingree paradigm. This position is not new and dates back to Ebenezer Burgess, Rajendralal Mitra, and S.R. Das. I suppose Athenean would like us to think that Rajendralal Mitra, who worked for the British Asia Society and advised the German Max Mueller who worked for the east Indian company, and Ebenezer Burgess were all (closet) Hindu Nationalists who just happened to be working for the empire that opposed it...what an odd thing to say.

But while they rely on these conspiracy theories to make their case, as well as smear tactics--they failed to find even one scholar who took the time to rebut Sidharth (on influence) or Mitra (on Yavana/yavanajataka). One wonders if athenean and dr.k have certain reasons for attacking sidharth and kak with the vitriol that they do, given the latter's theories of indian influence on greek astronomy--even if the majority views are privileged in an article?

In short, the utter lack of academic certainty regarding putative greek influence on Indian astronomy should demonstrate why the article wording and content should match with this reality. The foundation was broken by Billard, shaken by Ohashi and Mercier, and torn down by Kak and Sidharth who argue bringing back the old theories of Burgess and Das. This means that influence cannot be said to be on par with scientific fact, and thus, must be treated with caution.

Evolution is scientific fact, and thus, can be stated with certainty. But when Pingree's own theories are questioned by non-Indian scholars, does this not demonstrate the uncertainty of influence period? Even Ohashi emphasized how controversial this is--naturally scholars who have first hand academic mastery of sanskrit and indian texts (kak, mitra, burgess, et al), and familiarity with the texts and terminology are going to be more emphatic about the perpetuation of colonial theories by pingree. The opposition's confusion about the purpose of this DR/N is apparent when the miss the point that the debate is about certainty. No matter how many times athenean cherrypicks ohashi, it does not change the fact that greek influence remains controversial.

Pingree retained majority influence, Billard severely pushed back at Pingree's colonial era theories through sound science (versus Pingree's conjucture and speculation), Van Der Waeden said Billard's methodology was sound but did not change his views only saying either Pingree or Billard are right, Ohashi and Mercier say serious problems with Billard and the field is still controversial (with mercier saying some influence), Kak and Sidharth say, no, actually Indian astronomy influenced greek astronomy, with the Babylonians acting as Intermediaries. Does this show uniformity? Does this show certainty? No, it shows uncertainty and a full spectrum of views in a branch of study that is in great flux. The majority view (pingree) is already challenged, by Mercier and Ohashi at points b and c and Sidharth/Kak at point d. Wikipedia's NPOV clearly allows for views that contest majority paradigms (provided there is due weight consideration). It also states this : "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

Athenean and friends want to erase any possibility of Pingree's edifice being sufficiently challenged, any possibility of no greek influence on indian astronomy removed, and any mention of greek astronomy being influenced by Indian astronomy excised--even if it comes from a respected astronomer and physicist like Sidharth. The entire point of this debate is that the the last word on this subject is still being written and there are a full range of views. Our side only wants the article to reflect that. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask who you count on "our" side, and and how that is somehow preferable or right to what you have accused the other parties here of? The response from the DRN team seems pretty fair and neutral given the sources provided. And with respect to your last comments as the sources can change so the article will naturally change as well. Sometimes we all have to bend over for consensus, that's the ruling guidelines we have here. Do we always like it, no, but it's the only way to get things included here or at least limit the pain we inflict on ourselves and others in our frustrations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, this dispute began primarily between me, athenean and kishorekumar_62 (with SteveMcCluskey in there in the very beginning and again very recently). Neither you nor Dr.K were previous editors on the page and only joined mere days ago. If new users want to join, by all means, I have no problem, but it's pretty clear based on comments where users stand, so no need to waste time on this.

I appreciate Noleander's efforts and I have no complaints about him. I do disagree with the resolution, and do have concerns about with the speed of resolution--but every volunteer has his style. The reality is, there is no consensus between the original four editors in this dispute. Even if we add dr.k who actually posted research here, it's still not consensus--and with good reason. That is why I believe this dispute needs more formal proceedings and a greater investment of time due to its esoteric nature. I don't hold anything against the volunteer who invested his free time in what is a small matter in the greater scheme of things. In any event, the DR/N is over. If anything else need be said, let it be said on the article talk, since the dispute is about content/article rather than personalities. Devanampriya (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Devanampriya: Although the wall of text which you posted is difficult to read I want to ask you one thing: You said: One wonders if athenean and dr.k have certain reasons for attacking sidharth and kak with the vitriol that they do,...

Can you please supply a diff where I even mention kak or sidharth, let alone attack them? And if you cannot find that diff can you do the decent thing and apologise to me for making untrue allegations about me? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr.K, I don't need to because Athenean very clearly attacks respected astronomer and physicist B.G. Sidharth as a hindu nationalist, repeatedly and without a shred of evidence--funny how that seems to escape you. The two of you are obviously on the same side of the dispute and I repeatedly make reference to "Athenean and Friends" throughout my comment--must I by your logic provide diffs for each and every individual editor on your side of the dispute then?. I would say apologize for your accusation of "weasel words" and "original research" against me, but again, that would imply that you are interested in discussing matters civilly. The DR/N is clearly over, and the volunteer gave a decision. If there is anything else to be said about content or dispute, let it be said on the article talk page. Unlike you, I am interested in discussing the topic, not each other. There are better things for us to engage in than aftermath histrionics, so let's shift to the article talk page if there's anything else. Devanampriya (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Devanampriya: You said: One wonders if athenean and dr.k have certain reasons for attacking sidharth and kak with the vitriol that they do,... and I asked you to either provide a diff to substantiate this lie or apologise. You did neither. Thank you. It is clear now that you unabashedly lied against me and refused to correct your lie. As far as the rest of your screeds it has also become clear that you have no respect for reliable sources and verification and that you rely on personal attacks and original research to support your position while haughtily dismissing the clear and unambiguous scholarly verdict of the mediator which, in turn, was based on an abundance of reliable and verifiable sources both Western and Indian. So much about your baseless allegations about "eurocentrism" and "nationalist POV pushing". But it seems you will not accept the clear verdict of the reliable sources presented during the discussion because you seem to be interested only in the WP:TRUTH. Again, I will not speculate about your motives because, unlike you, I am not interested in throwing epithets at people. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr.K, please reread my entire comment. Did or did not Athenean say sidharth was a hindu nationalist without providing any evidence? Why pretend like he didn't both here and on article talk. Are you or are you not on the same side of the dispute? Funny how apparently baseless hindu nationalism slander is ok in your book, but perfectly reasonable and historically documented eurocentrism is not. I also asked you to apologise for your "weasel words" and "original research" comments about me which you continue to make and which clearly are unsubstantiated lies. So you can posture all you want here, but it's clear who the liar is. The article talk and your harassment of me on my own talk page as well as a page protect request I made speak volumes about you and your conduct as does your mischaracterization of the proceedings here. Users don't need our characterization to recognize the pattern of behavior from you. The proceedings here are clearly over, yet that's not enough for you, you insist on harassing users long after DR/N is concluded, badgering them despite the fact that proceedings were concluded in your favor. You also clearly have no understanding of DR/N which is non-binding. I and all users reserve the right to respectfully dissent and disagree, though we appreciate the time the moderators spend to look at the issue (Thank you Noleander). It is the required first step in the greater dispute resolution process available on wikipedia. My closing comment expressed the valid concerns I have, and I stand by them. You can posture and engage in after the fact theatrics all you want, but you are only staining your own credibility with this less than civil behavior and continued badgering. Devanampriya (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You do not surprise me Devanampriya. You try to harass and badger me by innuendo and proven untruths. But I have already exposed your tactics, so your statements about me are not worth the bandwidth they are carried on. I tried to help you by pointing to you your original research and weasel-words but you misrepresented my advice as a personal attack against you. But pointing out to you our policies is a matter of education not civility. I think you suffer from a severe case of WP:IDHT. You also tend to support your original research with habitual edit-warring, distortions and personal attacks. At WP:RSN your sources were deemed inferior and here your original research did not pass muster. Oh, despite your false assertions I know that DRN is non-binding. But DRN has moral value. That is why you came here: Hoping to have your original research validated. You started with an opening statement which attacked your "opponent" as a "nationalist POV pusher" hoping to impress the mediator with your false allegations since you knew that you could not support your flawed research by using reasoned arguments and reliable sources. But your gambit did not succeed. One of your peers has seen the evidence and rejected your POV position because some of your sources are inferior and you also misrepresent others. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr.K, you haven't exposed anything but your own continued dishonesty, which is why you continue to badger me with irrelevant comments and chest thumping posturing long after the buzzer--a surprising turn for someone who entered into this month long dispute mere days ago--how curious. The DR/N is long over, yet here we are, why?--because you're more interested in talking personalities rather than content. Now you pretend like you were doing all this for my benefit--despite the fact that you have provided no evidence for "weasel words" or "original research", because a lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth in your book. You guys treated Pingree like the high priest, then realized that western mathematicians themselves blew a planet-sized hole in his paradigm, then attempted to cover up the fact that your other sources are effectively citing his work uncritically, so your team did a hit job on a respected international astronomer like sidharth. You also continue to mischaracterize RS/N where two of the editors clearly pointed out that sidharth could be a reliable source provided certain criteria. Of the other two editors, one was a participant here (so there goes objectivity) and the other had the same odd/eyebrow raising things to say about Indian scholarship that team Athenean does--so the less said about him the better.

On the contrary, I came here because I recognized that this issue is going to need a long-term moderator given the type of intransigence and harassment and unprovoked threats your team likes to engage in (it is a consistent pattern of behavior seen on article talk, my talk page, page protect request, and here). I have already met the first required condition--DR/N. I have repeatedly thanked Noleander for his efforts and time, but I am well within my rights to disagree respectfully. By all means, if you wish to continue engaging in pointless badgering and harassing, go ahead--like I said before, you are only staining your own credibility--you just don't realize it. For my part, as I said earlier I am more interested in content and research. If there are article content related matters, I can be found on article talk. Devanampriya (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a simple question just above:

@Devanampriya: Although the wall of text which you posted is difficult to read I want to ask you one thing: You said: One wonders if athenean and dr.k have certain reasons for attacking sidharth and kak with the vitriol that they do,... Can you please supply a diff where I even mention kak or sidharth, let alone attack them? And if you cannot find that diff can you do the decent thing and apologise to me for making untrue allegations about me?

You were not able to answer my question, you never supplied the diff as I asked you to and then you did not do the decent thing to retract your lie. Instead you created walls of text, full of personal attacks and obfuscation, trying to justify your lie and badger and harass me. Case closed. Out of respect for this board I will not continue this discussion because 1. Your lies about me have been exposed. 2. You don't have the intellectual honesty to retract them. Feel free to add the last word with more vicious statements against me all of which are going to be lies. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked you these simple questions:

"Did or did not Athenean say sidharth was a hindu nationalist without providing any evidence? Why pretend like he didn't both here and on article talk. Are you or are you not on the same side of the dispute?".

Your stubborn insistence in not answering them speaks volumes about your intentions here, which is why you've continued to badger and harass me long after the DRN ended and now proceed to lie and mischaracterize what transpired here, exposing your own intellectual dishonesty. You can keep running around in circles and posturing in order to avoid discussing content, but the reality is you could never answer these questions or even provide simple back up support for your bad faith accusations of "weasel words" and "original research against me". That's why you've even started copying the concerns I've expressed when anyone here can clearly read and see who's been threatening, badgering, and harassing whom. The fact that you have to rely on these tactics continues to stain your credibility, particularly given the fact that anyone here can plainly see you started this off-topic and irrelevant argument. As I've repeatedly said, I can be found on article talk if anyone wants to discuss content. Otherwise, this DRN is clearly over. Devanampriya (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Wow, what can I say. You are completely mischaracterizing or ignoring everything I have said above, as well as totally ignoring all the sources Dr. K. and I have provided. You are misusing Ohashi, Mercier, and Billiard, endlessly repeating the same things. Regarding Ohashi, you made sure to omit in your post above that he clearly states Prior to this classical Siddhanta period, Greek astrology and astronomy were introduced to India. Does he state that, yes or no? And no, he is not describing Pingree's theory when he states that. You are misusing his thesis that the Siddhantas are free of foreign influence by attempting to extend this to Indian Astronomy as a whole. You are doing the same thing with Billiard and Mercier. Their work only applies to a particular aspect of Aryabhatta's work, yet you try to claim that their thesis applies to Indian Astronomy as a whole. This has been explained to you by several users above, yet you are ignoring it. Your attacks on Pingree are also irrelevant at this point, he is but one of many sources, as shown above, which again you just totally ignore. You are deep, deep into WP:IDHT territory, endlessly repeating yourself, and tuning out whatever you don't like. I notice you haven't moderated your position one bit since the start of this debate. It is due to such intransigence that we ended up here, and why we may yet end up somewhere else altogether. Noleander's proposal is eminently sensible. Please be reasonable. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Athenean, you're clearly missing the point and misrepresenting the dispute--as well as ohashi. All your allegations were clearly responded to in my most recent post. There is no misattribution of any authority or their quotes. Ohashi/Mercier/Billard all demonstrated that Pingree was dead wrong about whether Indian astronomers conducted original astronomical observation--which took colonial influence theories and pushed it to an extreme. They provided scientific proof of this and Pingree could only sputter because it was obvious he relied on conjecture and speculation. This naturally calls into question his other theories--including influence of siddhantas--which Ohashi very clearly contests--proof was provided for this too, and greek influence altogether (another vestige of the colonial period) contested by Sidharth, et al.

The whole point is to demonstrate uncertainty of the greek influence theory not to say authors x and y support my position. You failed to provide a single quote where ohashi says "influenced"--he only says greek astronomy was "introduced"--you clearly don't get this--these are two different words with two different meanings. And no, you are absolutely wrong, Pingree isn't just another source/scholar, his views are uncritically perpetuated today as Mercier himself complains about. Mercier attacks Pingree and his followers on this and I gave clear proof above. Please read clearly and stop misrepresenting facts. And please, let's not talk intransigence given your comments on article talk. Let's stick to content not personality.

I have already stated my views on the DR/N recommendation and thanked Noleander for his time and interest. I do not however agree to his proposal and believe more formal proceedings are required so that more time can be invested for a mediator to properly flesh out the problems here. If there is anything else left to be discussed, let it be done on article talk as this DR/N is clearly over. Devanampriya (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources look good

Okay, it looks like we have some good sources identified above. Let me read through the information, and I'll see if i can come up with a proposal that might be acceptable to everyone. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion from DRN volunteer

I've read through all of the above, and read portions of some of the sources. Based on that, my analysis is the following:

The issue here is how to describe the influence of Greek astronomy upon the development of Indian astronomy in the Indian astronomy article, particularly in the Lead and in the "Global discourse" section.

The historical events took place roughly 2,000 years ago, and the paucity of documentation from that era means that historians have a difficult time pinpointing events and influences with certainty.

There is general interest among historians of science in the possible influence of Greece upon Indian astronomy. In fact, two works were published on the topic in the mid 1970s: one by by Roger Billard in 1971 or 1974 ("L’Astronomie indienne"); and another by David Pingree in 1976 ("The Recovery of early Greek astronomy from India"). Their conclusions about the influence of Greece differed in some significant respects.

Subsequent scholars remarked on the conflicting interpretations, and elaborated on the topic, including Yukio Ohashi (1994), Hubert Van Der Waeden (1980), Raymond Mercier (2006), and others. Because of the substantial amount of top-quality academic sources, there is no need to consider sources that are second-rate, such as those published by new-age publishers and the like.

All of the sources agree that there was Greek influence on Indian astronomy. They differ only in the magnitude and timing: when was the influence? in which eras? Was it a large influence? or small? I think most objective observers would also agree that historians do not know, and probably never will know, exactly what the magnitude of the influence was ... in other words, there will always be some uncertainty accompanying any assertion about the degree or timing of the influence. The uncertainty continues: as recently as 2006, UK scholar Raymond Mercier published a paper analyzing the PIngree/Billard interpretations.

My recommendation is that the article should tell the readers:

1. There was significant and repeated influence from Greece ranging from 3rd century BC to 4th century AD
2. Following the 4th century AD the greek influence waned during the "classical Siddhanta" era, and Indian astronomy made major progress independently.
3. The initial Greek influences were initiated by the travels of Alexander the Great
4. Some scholars assert that Āryabhaṭa produced some of his major results independently from Greek sources.

I think that items (1) and (2) above are high-level facts that could be mentioned in the lead (as well as in the body). (3) and (4) should be in the body only.

For item (4), it may be best if the article names (in the text, not just in the footnote) the specific scholars that promote that interpretation (BIllard, Ohashi, and Mercier). It is clear from their writings that their hypothesis is very strong and deserves to be presented as viable and supported by solid research.

The above analysis is presented humbly, realizing full well that I know less about India or Astronomy than any of the parties. This analysis is presented merely as a suggested compromise. Parties are welcome to accept or reject it; or to take it as a starting point and modify it. Discussion can continue here in the DRN case or in the article Talk page. In any case, I'll be happy to continue to offer assistance in any way I can. --Noleander (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Great suggestions, I fully agree with 1), 3) and 4). Regarding 2), since we say that Greek influence lasted from the 3rd century BC to the 4th century AD, that kind of automatically implies it waned from the 4th century onwards, no? It might just be sufficient to say that from the 4t century onwards Indian astronomy made major progress independently. Thank you again for your efforts and your time. Athenean (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Noleander for taking the time to deliver a well-researched, clear, balanced, and fully rationalised decision. I can accept your points in their entirety or with the modification Athenean proposes. However, I disagree with you on one thing: I think you are being too modest about your knowledge of astronomy. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, thank you for taking the time to review the dispute, I appreciate it. It is unfortunate that a decision was issued so soon and prior to my being able to rebut many of the most recent assertions by the other side about Ohashi's views. I also noticed that Sidharth, Kak, Burgess, and Mitra were not mentioned by you in your decision--the latter two certainly were not published by "new agers", and Sidharth was effectively validated by RS/N editors (irrespective of publisher).

I do nevertheless appreciate the time you took, though I'm afraid your recommendation does not take into consideration the state of flux theories on Indian astronomy remain in. Since I must respectfully disagree to the outcome of this DR/N ( I do urge you to reconsider given that my most recent comment posted after your decision was issued), I believe more formal dispute resolution should be pursued given how esoteric this topic is. More allocated time would have been ideal and allowed for more comprehensive treatment. In any event, thank you for your time and interest. Good day. Devanampriya (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Devanampriya: My suggestion above carries no special weight. I'm just an editor like you or the other parties. The essence of the DRN process is to try to reach a compromise that all parties can live with. My suggestion is just what I feel is best for readers, based on what I read in the sources. Let me ask you this: If you took my 4 suggestions above as a starting point: what specific changes would you make to them (with the goal of finding a resolution that everyone can live with)? --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, let me just again sincerely thank you for your time and interest in this dispute. I know as a volunteer/non-admin you have better things to do with your time but are here because like the rest of us you want a better and more accurate (and we can only dream!) more collegial wikipedia. I too want this, but disagree that this recommendation is the way forward.

With respect to it, my concerns are no different than those previously stated--that the theories of greek influence on indian astronomy have undeniable uncertainty--as the debate within western scholarship itself on the topic shows. There is a vocal minority which contests the basis of these theories and has since the days of Burgess--there was even an entire book written on the topic by S.R. Das in the 20th century. While I know you really want to end the acrimony (I have no doubt of this) of the dispute while preserving what you deem appropriate based on what you read in the sources, that element of uncertainty is missing in the recommendation. As you can see going back to article talk, Kishore and I acknowledged the dominant Pingree paradigm of influence and suggested verbiage to reflect this as well as the current mathematical critique--which has repercussions for even the credibility of his non-astro observation theories--and the theories which reject Pingree's paradigm in whole. Mercier himself lamented that Pingree's views are uncritically repeated by the majority of scholarship on the topic today--despite mathematical demonstration to the contrary. The sources we provided demonstrated the full spectrum of thought on the issue--establishing the need for uncertainty.

I respect that you viewed certain theories with greater weight than others--our position is that none of these theories has any certainty and is uncontested--certainly no equivalents to scientifically verified evolution. Even suggestion 1 is a matter of concern because significant and repeated influence has not been demonstrated, only speculative theories that conjecture this and that(articles must reflect this). To be fair, you correctly pointed out that attributing influence is exceedingly difficult to demonstrate--but that does not mean it's not necessary. Alexander's presence in India was not responsible for the sustained interaction between indian and greek schools of thought (Alexander and his garrisons removed from India within mere years of his invasion). To say he "initiated" through his travels it would be implausible and inaccurate (even Ohashi says greek astronomy was "introduced" (not "influenced") in the second century CE). The indo-greeks (and possibly scythians and kushans) are thus the candidates for this interaction given that they actually had polities for whole decades in the northwestern parts of India. They themselves don't even enter the scene until the 2nd century BCE (vs 4th century BCE of alexander), by which time Alexandria, Egypt was also intellectually thriving. As such, given all this, and my previous concerns, I must amiably and respectfully dissent from your recommendation. Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate your time and continued outreach even after your duties were discharged. Thank you and good day. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Burgess was a 19th century priest, and Mitra has nothing to do with astronomy. And no, Sidarth was definitely not validated by RSN. Seems to me that you are just refusing to accept the outcome of this DR process. It's also not cool to imply that Noleander is somehow incompetent (the essence of your "esoteric" comment). If you continue along this path, it is not "more formal dispute resolution" that should be pursued, but rather disciplinary action. Athenean (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Athenean, please moderate your comments. My response was addressed to Noleander not you and was nothing but respectful. Don't put words in my mouth--greek influence on indian astronomy is clearly an esoteric area--only a bad faith editor would find anything demeaning in the statement as it clearly was not intended. He himself said he wasn't an expert on two of the concerned topics. I stand by my comments. As I have said repeatedly, focus on content not personality.

Burgess translated the surya siddhanta (a classic text on indian astronomy) and like Mitra had actual academic knowledge of and familiarity with sanskrit--the language of hindu astronomy. Their branch of study and accomplishments are absolutely critical since topics frequently straddle multiple fields. Any historian of Indian astronomy has to either have scholarly knowledge of sanskrit or should consult an actual sanskrit scholar for clear understanding on the use of sanskrit terms in astronomy. It is not enough to say--oh this must be it, and then perpetuate it for a hundred years because it gives support for your conjecture even though the terminology actually has a wider meaning that undercuts your astronomical theory.

Finally, you seem to be unclear on the non-binding nature of DR/N and how it is the requisite first step to more formal proceedings. Please refer to the dispute resolution page to better understand this process. Also, between here and the talk page, you are building a fine record of unprovoked threats and other disruptive bad faith behavior. You should moderate this tendency, lest you find yourself facing the very disciplinary action you are threatening me with now. Devanampriya (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions to all involved, this is a disagreement that won't get solved here by Devanampriya own admission. Let the DR/N speak for itself, if he continues editing and prefers to go to Arbcom let him dig that hole himself. The discourse is crystal clear don't get caught on the other-side of WP:STICK. Give him a chance to disengage, he is trying to get away by some of his comments above (small thing in the grand scheme of thing), let him work on something else or take a break and things may improve. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to close the DRN case?

I notice that some of the discussion above is starting to go around in circles; and that there are even some personal attacks starting to show up. This DRN case may have run its course. Unless there is some constructive move towards a solid consensus, I suggest that the case be closed in the next day or two. If we feel that the situation is still not resolved, we can either (a) ask for additional uninvolved editors to give input here in this DRN case; (b) take the discussion to the Talk page; or (c) start an WP:RFC within the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tabled your proposal on the article talk page [45] in the hope of seeing where the community stands regarding it. Your participation there would be most welcome, as always. Thank you again for your efforts. Athenean (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander's wish to close the DRN. I don't see anything constructive here given some of the comments directed at me. I have stated my views on the DRN recommendation, so must respectfully dissent. I think more formal mediation proceedings will be required at some point. Given the continuing acrimony, I don't see this happening anytime soon. Either way, the article isn't going anywhere, so people can reconvene when they please. Good day. Devanampriya (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2013 (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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Foundation for Defense of Democracies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Liberty20036 (talk · contribs)
• Qworty (talk · contribs)
• Psychonaut (talk · contribs)
• Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two issues, first lack of interest in resolving the Copyright violation. Attempts in correcting are repeatedly undone and are not explained why. May need someone with more knowledge in resolving copyright violations.

And second, there is no consensus on what should be added or removed from the page or what qualifies as criticism or NPOV. Especially the discussion of the subject's political views.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have tried compromising and trying to continue discussion but just results in edit warring and vandalism. Page has been stagnant for months.

How do you think we can help?

Attract more editors so greater consensus can be built. Editors who consistently engage in vandalism and edit wars should be banned. Anything that can resolve the disputes regarding NPOV, Copyright Violation, and COI.

Opening comments by Qworty

User:Liberty20036 vandalized the copyvio tag [46] and was duly blocked for vandalism [47]. For some reason, which merits investigation, he also vandalized a COI tag placed by User:Plot Spoiler regarding User:Mad256 [48]. User:Liberty20036 is a WP:SPA who edits only on this article and who has been assessed, by an editor other than myself, as having a connection to the subject and an evident WP:COI [49]. His preferred version of the article [50] is loaded with primary sources in violation of WP:PRIMARY and secondary sources that praise the organization in violation of WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV. User:Liberty20036 has admitted to newbie status and has said that he is “annoyed” by Wikipedia’s requirement for consensus [51]. He has violated WP:CIVIL by smearing editors who disagree with him as “uninformed” “stone throwers” and claiming that Wikipedia is a “joke” [52]. He has reverted every edit that I have ever made to this article, and I find him impossible to work with. For all of the reasons I’ve given here, I believe that his sole interest is in promoting FDD in violation of WP:PROMO, that he has no interest in working with anyone else, and that his only policy and guideline interests lie in advancing the causes of this particular organization. Given his history of vandalism, WP:COI, POV-pushing, edit warring, and stated lack of interest in consensus, I regrettably believe that the best interests of the encyclopedia can be served only by permanently blocking him. Qworty (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Psychonaut

First, a note that I have not been involved in editing the article except to add ((copyvio)) tags to infringing sections, and to restore these tags when they are removed out of process. (Presumably the out-of-process removals are the vandalism which Liberty20036 is referring to.) I have been trying to assist Liberty20036 with Wikipedia policy on the article talk page and at some of the other project-space reports concerning this article (some of which Liberty20036 themselves instigated):

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 January 23
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 23#Foundation for Defense of Democracies
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 61#Foundation for Defense of Democracies
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Foundation for Defense of Democracies

The copyright violation tags have remained in the article due to a backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; there's not much we can do except to wait for a copyright clerk or administrator to process the case. There is certainly interest in solving the issue; there is just a lack of human resources. In any case, I suspect this particular issue is out of scope for WP:DRN because it's already the subject of an active report at WP:CP.

As for the NPOV issues, I have some sympathy for Liberty20036's concerns and have repeatedly asked that they propose specific changes on the article talk page so that it can be established whether there exists a consensus for them. I am still waiting for such proposals. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by

Foundation for Defense of Democracies 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.