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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Kamrupi Prakrit ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Kamrupi dialect ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bhaskarbhagawati ( talk · contribs)
• Chaipau ( talk · contribs)
• Aeusoes1 ( talk · contribs)
• Richard Keatinge ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/ Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the issue extensively with them at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#Removal_of_reliable_sources,
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Bhaskarbhagawati_and_Kamarupi,
• Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit
• Talk:Kamrupi_dialect

How do you think we can help?

The issue started back in 2012, when original old article Kamrupi was divided into Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors including Aeusoes, "citing lack of sources". Their chief argument was modern languages/dialects cannot have history. Since then i have added numerous sources but they dismisses and persistently deletes them, even though wp:rsn said they are reliable to use on the subject. I need wp:drn advice on the dispute.

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

The dispute is not about whether Kamrupi dialect is a "modern speech which lacks history", but whether Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit are synonymous and equivalent.

That they are different was first pointed out by Kwamikagami around June/July 2012 and he tried to split the article in two 501823544. There was a brief tussle between Bhaskarbhagawati and Kwamikagami over moves, with Bhaskarbhagawati trying to move it to Kamrupi Language, which was eventually deleted. I agreed with Kwamikagami, and backed it up with two references (Sharma 1978 and Goswami 1970). Both these works are seminal and comprehensive enough and they name the two articles as they stand today. Bhaskarbhagawati at first tried to move the article, and then attempted a merge that failed. And since then his attempt has been to either insert "Kamrupi language" through citations in the lede or templates above it; or dig up references whose wordings seemingly implied that the modern dialect and the pre-1250 language are the same. Bhaskarbhagawati continues his attempt to merge the two, as he admitted here 890529414.

The phrasing "modern speech which lacks history" is very recent, just a few days old. Even if this was the issue, then all the modern dialects in the dialectal continuum included in the Kamatapuri lects and the Assamese language too deserve their share of history.

Chaipau ( talk) 01:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aeusoes1

I was brought to the issue in 2012 by a request for a third opinion regarding whether Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit are referentially equivalent. I teased out the mutual claims that Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau made, and realized that the former editor had relied on cherry picked, misunderstood, or unauthoritative quotes to claim that the two were the same. Reliable sourcing instead indicates that the 12th century Prakrit was likely a precursor language to what amounts to a modern-day dialect continuum. As is typical for dialect continua, a few language divisions have been made that are linguistically arbitrary, but still recognized as valid for sociohistorical reasons. In the same way that we don't consider Latin and Italian to be the same language, we wouldn't consider the Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit to be the same, even though they are clearly related, because of the political, cultural, and linguistic changes that have happened since the 12th century.

I explained this to Bhaskarbhagawati, but he disagrees with this assessment. He has so far not provided any convincing evidence that we should change the presentation in the article to reflect his belief that the two are referentially equivalent. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kamrupi Prakrit, Talk:Kamrupi dialect discussion

To support the statement that Kamrupi language do have history, i have provided references with full quotes from eminent local linguist, which are at [1] and [2]. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources by me (Bhaskarbhagawati)

• Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion, but not in the last three days. The editors should resume discussion on an article talk page. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, it can be resumed here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not going to work, Robert. There hasn't been discussion in the last three days because we've been discussing at ANI, where I had brought up the dispute because Chaipau and I believe that the real problem is disruptive practices on Bhaskarbhagawati's part. We have been tasked with using DRN as a gesture of good faith. Bhaskarbhagawati specifically has been explicitly instructed not to discuss the matter in the talk pages [3] [4] until we go through the DRN process. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: I agree with user:aeusoes1, for the exacting requirements set on us at ANI. Also, over the years, since 2012, we have been stuck with the central question because of the different incarnations it takes (the latest is the "lack of history" phrasing). DRN should probably avoid falling into this trap of never ending cycles of discussions. Chaipau ( talk) 12:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and others, consider opening this thread, there are editing restrictions on article and talk, until issue is resolved here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Since this case is being referred to this noticeboard from WP:ANI, it is particularly important that the editors follow the rules, because otherwise this case will go back to WP:ANI, possibly with my recommendations for a block or a lock. Please follow the rules at my statement of the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. I am not familiar with the details, but I understand that the issue has to do with how old the language is; I expect the editors to be able to inform me of all of the details, just as the article should inform readers of everything that is written by reliable sources. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to my questions. Every editor is expected to reply to my questions within 48 hours.

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe the issues are, and what the article should say? Be concise, because the article should be concise.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Thank you Robert McClenon, the precise dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/ Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature. Until 2012, original article was saying later, which was subsequently divided into Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi Prakrit by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors citing lack of sources. Since then, relevant sources from eminent local linguists with full quotes are added to support its original position. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect currently states that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese, citing Goswami's (1970) A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese. I think this is correct. Kamarupi Prakrit, Assamese language#History, and KRNB lects identify the time that Assamese (which includes dialects like Kamrupi) began differentiating itself from its ancestral language and surrounding varieties as around 1250. We thus already reflect that Kamrupi has a history by indicating the mother language that Kamrupi comes from, and we also already identify the body of literature that reflects this history. What we don't (and shouldn't) do is refer to Kamarupi Prakrit as merely an earlier form of Kamrupi, since there are a number of varieties also descended from Kamarupi Prakrit. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator

I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. Does anyone claim that the older language and the modern language are the same, or is there agreement that there has been linguistic evolution? If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours.

Second Statements by Editors

To be precise, Kamrupi dialect is a modern dialect of the Assamese language. It is established that Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved. It has evolved, after 1250, on the one hand into a group of lects (called Kamatapuri lects) that cluster together and on the other hand into Assamese language, which is also a cluster of lects or dialects. Thus, Kamarupi Prakrit → KRNB (Kamatapuri, Rangpuri, etc lects) + Assamese (Kamrupi, Goalparia, etc. dialects). Chaipau ( talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours in less than 300 words. Be clear, concise, and civil. If the issue is how to accommodate different statements that are not inconsistent, this can be worked out. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

I am rephrasing the statements of dispute for better clarity. The disputes are:

• Is first Indo-Aryan language of Assam, India/attested ancestral language of modern Assamese language, and the Kamrupi dialect is the same language ?
• Is the sources supporting the above need to included (currently deleted) in the article ?
• Is both the articles Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect which were divided in 2012, can be merged as per majority sources ?

The relevant sources for any academic consensus, i.e. Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, an work agreed on by both the parties and other relevant sources are included in "Second Statements by Editors" for reference of moderator.

The other party has yet to produce sources which says opposite of "Kamrupi dialect is first Indo-Aryan language of Assam which is also the ancestral language of modern Assamese language", so there appears no contradiction between sources as of now. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is the nature of the dispute. You can even see that reflected in Bhaskarbhagawati's most recent edit in which he changes "modern dialect of Assamese" to "modern language" and "the historical language spoken in Kamarupa" to "the old language" mischaracterizing the modern dialect as its own separate language and Kamarupi Prakrit as simply an ancestral form of said language (rather than an ancestor language to a number of varieties).

I know of no sources that put forth the claim that Kamarupi Prakrit and the Kamrupi dialect are the same language. The main source that Bhaskarbhagawati wishes to quote from, Goswami (1970), clearly indicates that they are separate in its very title. The notion of actually merging the articles also doesn't make sense, given that Kamarupi Prakrit is also the ancestor language of e.g. Assamese and Bengali and we certainly aren't going to merge all of those into one article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to equate the pre-1250 unattested language kamarupi Prakrit and the modern kamrupi dialect, dialect of Assamese language. This cannot be done since Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved into different languages and dialects. Kamrupi dialect is just one of these dialects. This is the position of most standard linguists: Grierson, Chaterji, Kakati, and Masica. No author supports Bhashkarbhagawati's position. Goswami (1970) too has clearly shown that the Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved and Kamrupi dialect is a dialect of the Assamese language. Chaipau ( talk) 03:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati wishes Wikipedia to say that the early Kamarupi Prakrit is the same language as modern Kamrupi dialect. As Chaipau points out, Kamarupi Prakrit is the minimally-attested ancestor of a number of related modern languages and dialects, including modern Kamrupi dialect. Authorities do not generally treat it as being "the same" language as modern Kamrupi dialect. Bhaskarbhagawati seems to be eager to right a great wrong, namely that "effort here by Chaipau is to cement his point that said speech" (modern Kamrupi dialect) "is mere dialect which entirely lacks history." I don't think that's an appropriate reason to urge the merger of two articles about distinct languages, certainly not to belabour the subject at such extreme length with quotations dredged from Google and (as in the collapsed section above) repeated and attributed to different authorities. (Nor, by the way, do I see any effort to belittle the literary achievements of mediaeval / modern Kamrupi dialect.) Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderators

It appears that User:Richard Keatinge was not a previous party to this discussion and is trying to help resolve this. Unless he objects, I will add his name to the list of volunteers and will let the discussion continue under his moderation. I may chime in as a participant. I thank User:Richard Keatinge for assisting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

Robert McClenon neutrality issue may be arise if Richard Keatinge made moderator of the current thread. He was an oppposite party in an recent dispute involving me (see: Talk:Assamese_people, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_259#Dravidian_ethno-linguistic_group_in_ancient_Assam,_India and others), and is next in line as party, as said dispute supposed to brought in here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, need to clarify that user:Richard Keatinge was the WP:3O in the discussion in its entirety. Chaipau ( talk) 11:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

Okay. I will continue as moderator, and have added User:Richard Keatinge as a party.

We are in agreement that Kamrumpi Prakrit is a historic predecessor of modern Assamese, of which Kamrupi dialect is a form. What are the points of difference, then? Will each editor please state concisely what they see as the points of difference? Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

Thanks to Robert McClenon and Bhaskarbhagawati; indeed it's much better if I don't try to moderate this discussion. As for the differences between ancient Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern Kamrupi dialect, I will leave any detailed description to the relevant articles and to the reliable sources, accurately represented by Chaipau and aeusoes1. It might indeed be helpful to have a comparison, possibly in the Kamarupi Prakrit article, between what is known of Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern dialects. But I am not equipped to provide anything of the sort. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Before i point the differences, i like to clear some previous statements of editors. Aeusoes wrote Kamrupi is ancestoral language of Bengali language and Assamese language, i like to inform that ancestral form of Bengali is Radhi, not Kamrupi. Chaipau wrote that Richard Keatinge is wp:3O in entirety, but he was wp:3O in 2017 dispute, after that he was involved as full fledge party in other articles talks and wp:rsn.

There are several point of difference, first the spelling "Kamarupi Prakrit" (first used in 2012 by Chaipau after division of common article) is based on few lines of a non-linguistic work, whereas reliable linguistic sources calls it by different names (Kamrupi language, Old Kamarupi dialect, Kamrupi Apabhramsa etc, see References 1, References 2). The second point of difference is presentation of article, other party claims Kamrupi dialect as modern form of language (their point against merger) based on sole source, but it don't say anything of such. The reliable source talks of its antiquity, and its present dialect status not due to linguistic reasons but political (loss of prestige etc, see Goswami (1970), p.4, Goswami (1970), p.14). भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, user:Robert McClenon.

• The major point of dispute was whether Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are same. As you suggest above I think we have resolved this issue.
• The minor points of dispute relate to WP:POINT, where:
  • Name spellings, Kamarupi vs Kamrupi. We are using Kamarupi for the Prakrit because that is the spelling used by the author (Sharma) who most comprehensively specified it first, and because the Prakrit is an MIA language where phonetics demand the use of the extra a. Using Kamrupi for the Prakrit would suggest a modern language. (I am striking this out since this is reacting to other editors on an issue that has been newly introduced into the discussion. 20:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC))
  • Packing the lede of the two articles with text and extended (and often repeated) citations that suggest the two articles are equivalent. Examples of these citations are in the TL;DR above.

IMHO, the minor points could be resolved on the basis of the major point of dispute.

Chaipau ( talk) 18:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

I think that we are in agreement on the major point. If there is disagreement, please so state. If so, the minor points will be worked out on the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

There is disagreement regarding sources, reliable sources and viewpoints are excluded from the pages, other parties claim lacks sources. The major disagreements are:

• Should all major viewpoints on the subject be included.
• Should all exceptional claims be supported by sources, applicable to both the parties.
• Should article naming convention be according to wp:common name.
• There are no published works on this older form of language, so its distinct status cannot be established.

Robert McClenon consider helping me with the above points, as we exhausted dispute resolution processess, i have no intention to carry the issue further, will accept once for all the recommendations provided here. A warm thank you to you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• There is widespread agreement or WP:CONSENSUS on the point that the two articles in question are separate and that the relationship between the Prakrit and the lects/dialects is of one-to-many. But I doubt there will ever be unanimity.
• Unfortunately, we have been discussing, since 2012, the various avatars the lack of unanimity has taken. From "right to history" to spellings to various other arguments, we seem to keep recycling and reinventing the discussion, and we are unable to give the two articles the forms that they deserve. If we are unable to tackle this here now we will have to go back to ANI because we have been sent here from there, and because un-moderated discussions are fruitless in this dispute.

Thank you for moderating and helping us with resolving the major/basic issue.

Chaipau ( talk) 00:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator

Bhaskarbhagawati asks three questions. The answer to the first (all major viewpoints) is yes. Is there a viewpoint that is being excluded? The answer to the second (should exceptional claims be supported by sources) is that claims (whether or not exceptional) should be supported by sources. Are there unsourced claims? The third question has to do with whether to use common names. Is there an issue about the use of a less common name? Is there agreement that there are no published works on the older form of the language (which itself does not survive as a written langauge)?

Chaipau makes a general statement, and so I will pose the above questions to both editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors

@ Robert McClenon: there is no dispute on the three matters of principle: (1) Should we represent the majority view (yes); (2) Should we support exceptional claims by sources (yes); and whether we should use the common name (yes). All these principles are being followed in the articles. What is at dispute are Bhaskarbhagawati's interpretations of these principles. Here are some examples:

• Goswami (1971), which is actually the published version of a 1958 PhD thesis, obviously does not name the MIA language correctly. The name Kamarupi Prakrit was coined in the later 1970s and established by Sharma (1978). Goswami in his 1991 book Oxomiya Bhaxar Udbhav Xomriddhi aru Bikax (in Assamese), writes: "Scholars have named this 'Kamarupi Prakrit'" (p4) (translation mine). So the author that Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to use to name the older language something else has himself used Kamarupi Prakrit for it, once it had become standard. This shows that we are indeed following here the first (majority view) and the third principles (common name).
• The quote from Goswami (1971) is clearly out of context, because in the very same book, he has shown how the modern dialect is different from the older Prakrit. I have listed specific examples of these in the "second statement by editors" (now in TL;DR).
• The second principle (sourced exceptional claims) is also followed— Kamarupi_Prakrit#Etymology_of_various_names gives the other names people have used for the older language with sources.
• If you read the TL;DR part then you will notice that the quoted texts of the first and the second are for the major part exactly same - sentence to sentence, word to word. This is because the authors of these two are the same person (Goswami). Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati attributes the second quote to Sukumar Sen instead. This was pointed out to Bhaskarbhagwati in an earlier discussion at the WP:RSN. So this is no evidence of "majority" or "common".

What is at dispute here is the use of these principles to disruptively insert language and references in the lead of these articles to somehow indicate that these two articles are equivalent. I call it disruptive because since 2012 there is WP:CONSENSUS (not unanimity) that they are not equivalent, and which is exactly what we discovered in this discussion as well.

Chaipau ( talk) 11:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you, yes indeed significant viewpoints and most comprehensive works on the subject are excluded, including Upendranath Goswami who wrote extensively on the subject than anybody else. If we see the pattern of excluded viewpoints is their equating of modern language with old one, which i believe a classic case of censorship of majority viewpoint, which i think will be followed in future too. Such as:

1) Goswami, Upendranath (1970). A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese. Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies. Assam. p.4, p.14, p.ii, p.iii., Goswami, Golockchandra (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication. Gauhati University. p. 11, Medhi, Kaliram (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66., Sengupta, Madhumita (2016). Becoming Assamese: Colonialism and New Subjectivities in Northeast India. Routledge. p. 100. and others. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff etc.

2) The most notable unsourced claim is "first Indo-Aryan language of Assam (old language) is a distinct language", no author claimed so.

3) The most common names as per current sources ( [5], [6]):- Old Kamarupi dialect (3), Kamrupi language (3), Kamrupi Apabhramsa (3), Kamrupi Prakrit (2), Kamarupi Prakrit (1). We can observe current spelling is least common. The current name is based on passing comment of Mukunda Madhava Sharma, a unknown name in the field of linguistics. The claim by above editor that Goswami's Assamese work used Sharma's version is misrepresentation, i have seen that work, nobody can write "Kamarupi" Prakrit in Assamese because common spelling used in indic and Assamese script is 'কামৰূপী' (Kamrupi), whereas in English Kamarupi and Kamrupi holds the same meaning where first is Sanskrit usage second usage with Sanskrit phoneme (first vowel) suppressed.

4) Linguists yet to dedicate any work on this old literary language (the language of Dakabhanita, Charyapada, Inscriptions etc.) to establish it as distinct language other than one of modern language.

Thus my major concern here is suppressing of most important viewpoints, which are saying otherwise than what above editors actually wants articles to portray. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator

Okay. Let's try a different approach. The current articles will serve as the baseline. Will each editor please list all of the points where they think either of the articles should be changed? We will then see if we can work out the issues or if we need to use RFC, but it appears that we need to use RFC. Be concise, but list all of the points whee you believe there are content issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Chaipau - It wasn't my idea to send a dispute from WP:ANI to DRN, but, yes, the RFC or RFCs will be the conclusion of the DRN cycle, and will not result in the case being sent back to WP:ANI. Disruption of the RFC will be sent to ANI, so don't disrupt the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors

@ Robert McClenon: before I make the list, I would like to ask two questions.

• A couple of diffs listed above as disputed are from user:Msasag. Should they be made an editor and given a warning message?
• These two articles have gone through a number of RFC, 3O cycles (one of the 3O editors is listed here as a party), merge requests etc. since 2012. We have reached here from ANI with the understanding that if it is not resolved here, we will go back to ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Bhaskarbhagawati_and_Kamarupi Is the RFC you are suggesting a part of the DRN process, in this thread?

Thanks! Chaipau ( talk) 10:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon Thanks, yes. RfC within the DRN process is what we probably require, not outside; since RfCs have occurred earlier. Chaipau ( talk) 02:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, in best of my knowledge i am listing following points:

• Title - The spelling of old language article ("Kamarupi Prakrit"-1 source) don't meet wp:common name criteria, the most common titles as per available sources are Old Kamarupi dialect (3 sources), Kamrupi language (3 sources), Kamrupi Apabhramsa (3 sources), Kamrupi Prakrit (2 sources).

• Presentation - Both the articles not reflecting experts on the subject/reliable sources (Upendranath Goswami, Golokchandra Goswami, Kaliram Medhi - Kamrupi dialect/ Western Asamiya/ Western Assam dialect/ Undivided Kamrup district language = Old Kamarupi dialect/ Kamrupi language/ Kamrupi Apabhramsa/ Kamrupi Prakrit/ Ancient literary language of Assam).

• Censorship - Both the article missing most significant viewpoints.

• Notability - No linguists claimed older language as a distinct language, neither we have any dedicated published books on it. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my list of changes I wish to see to improve the articles:

• Maintain the name Kamarupi Prakrit as it became standard in 1978 on the basis of the five principles of WP:CRITERIA; if a change is required it should revert not to pre-1978 forms, but to Proto-Kamarupa language, in line with modern linguistic usage (e.g. Toulmin) for reconstructed unattested languages.
• Collaborate with other editors to insert and expand the three features of proto-Kamarupa as reconstructed in Toulmin.
• Remove vestigial out-of-context references and citations that either claim or suggest equivalence of the two articles; to be in line with the agreement that Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are not equivalent.
• Stop WP:GAME such as the usage of template {{redirect}} for wordings such as "Kamrupi language" redirects here. For other uses, see Kamrupi. above the lead. This began in 2012 after Kamrupi Language was rejected as the article name for Kamrupi dialect.
• Shrink the section Kamrupi_dialect#Definition_of_the_region to focus only on the relevant issue (language and linguistics of the region), since the region is already well defined in its own article— Kamrup region.
• Report threats to and revivalism of Kamrupi dialect in an NPOV manner in its own section in Kamrupi dialect.
• Develop sections for the sub-dialects of Kamrupi dialect, and subsequently their own articles (e.g. Barpetia dialect, Nalbaria dialect etc.) Prevent the removal of these names from Kamrupi dialect.

Thank you! Chaipau ( talk) 23:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator

1. The first issue is the name of the article on the old language. Since there does not seem to be agreement, we will use a Move Request, which works like an RFC. This will take place while other discussion continues. Please list all proposed names.

2. We are in agreement that the two articles are not equivalent. One is about the older language and the other is about the modern dialect. Please identify any sections that imply an equivalence and we will fix them.

3. Please list all specific proposed changes. Be specific. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors

Robert McClenon, thank you for creating subpage for the discussion of the Kamrupi language/dialect issues. I am listing my opinion below :

1.The most common names as per current sources [7] [8] are Old Kamarupi dialect (3), Kamrupi language (3), Kamrupi Apabhramsa (3), Kamrupi Prakrit (2), Kamarupi Prakrit (1), proto-Kamrupa (1).

2. For point number two i rather ask a question about how we can accommodate linguists who opines old language is older form of modern Kamrupi (Upendranath Goswami, Golokchandra Goswami, Kaliram Medhi, Sukumar Sen, Madhumita Sengupta and others).

3. The specific proposed changes in my view are:

• The title of article according to wp:common name, as listed in point number one.

• Inclusion of all significant viewpoints and restriction in their deletion in future.

• Due weight to experts and linguistic works over non-linguistic works, say Upendranath Goswami (author of O. I. A. sibilants in Kāmrupi, Onomatopoetic and echo-words in Kamrupi, A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese (thesis and book) and numerous other works on the language i.e. he wrote extensively on Kamrupi compared to others) should get priority over others on Kamrupi, while Mukunda Madhava Sharma (passing comment in non-linguistic work) and Matthew Toulmin (a thesis on modern lects of North Bengal, west of Assam) should get lesser weight.

• Inclusion of all works and sources which says older language was distinct language, to be provided by other editors, otherwise going for possible merge.

Thus, to summarise i suggest titling of article according to common name, inclusion of all viewpoints on the subject and restriction in their deletion, exclusion of unsourced claims and more weightage to experts.

Since the beginning of our discussion there are serious misrepresentations, which i believe need to be addressed for those newer to the subject. Some of them are:

• The Old Kamrupi language/Old Kamrupi dialect was unattested before 1250 and reconstructed later, incontrast written records are available from fifth century inscriptions and earlier, the 8th century authoritative works like Charyapada, Dakabhanita etc. (see sources) were written in Kamrupi language, hence most basic information about Kamrupi language presented erroneously.

• Old Kamrupi language was attached to a 4th century political entity of old Kamrup region, although Aryan people presence in Assam was from 7th century B.C. and so was estimated date of separation of Kamrupi language from Magadhi Prakrit along with its sister languages Radhi, Vanga and Varendari etc. Our main issue from the beginning is WP:V. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I shall list the article names within 24 hours, and take a little longer to list the changes. I shall remove this note when I do so. Chaipau ( talk) 03:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Kamarupi Prakrit based on an actual attempt at reconstruction; we should not move back to ad hoc names used before 1978.
   • Recognizability—this name is recognizable because it has gained currency in the academic literature after 1978 when it was coined, based on a substantial attempt at reconstruction.
   • Precision—This name is unambiguous since the use of Prakrit indicates it is from an older period and that it existed in parallel to Sanskrit; that it is reconstructed based on prakritisms found in Sanskrit texts; and distinguishes it from the modern Kamrupi dialect. It uses Kamarupi, derived from Kamarupa to denote the prevalence of the language in the entire Kamarupa kingdom that encompassed present-day Assam and North Bengal, the languages of which this old language was the parent. Many other names, used before 1978, were coined ad hoc (and thus the profusion) and lack precision.
   • Conciseness—The article name is two words and no more.
   • Consistent—The name uses the form Kamarupi to denote that it is associated with Kamarupa and avoids being associated with Kamrup region, which is a much smaller present-day region within the older kingdom. This usage is consistent with the wider uses of these two names, Kamarupa and Kamrup, across Wikipedia.
2. Proto-Kamarupa language
   • This name has been used recently, so is not as widely used. So Wikipedia should probably wait for a little while before moving to this name.
   • Improves precision tremendously—While maintaining the precision of Kamarupi Prakrit, it adds to the fact that the language is unattested and that it has been reconstructed (partially for now), with at least one attempt based on the comparative method.
   • Improves consistency—This name brings it in line with modern linguistic practices.

Chaipau ( talk) 12:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator

I will be starting a Request for Comments on the primary title of this article.

I will repeat my request to identify any proposed specific changes to the article. What part of "be specific" wasn't specific enough? "Inclusion of all viewpoints" is not specific, but a restatement of a principle. If any specific viewpoint is omitted and should be added, specify it. "Inclusion of all works and sources" is not specific. What works and sources?

Do you want me to close this discussion with a finding that there is a lot of vague complaining? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors

Robert McClenon sorry, actually i restated the principle of "inclusion of all viewpoints" because of other editors statement that viewpoints not in line of consensus should be excluded, although i supposed to be more specific. The most important viewpoints excluded are:

• Goswami, Upendranath (1970). A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese. Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies. Assam. p.4 (Equating Kamrupi language with Kamrupi dialect)

• Goswami, Upendranath (1970). A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese. Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies. Assam. p.ii (Stating its alternate name Kamarupi dialect)

• Goswami, Upendranath (1970). A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese. Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies. Assam. p.14 (Stating dialect status of Kamrupi language in modern times due to lose of prestige and political reasons not linguistic)

• Goswami, Golockchandra (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication. Gauhati University. p. 11 (Stating Western Asamiya/Kamrupi dialect as sole ancient and pre-modern literary language of Assam)

• Medhi, Kaliram (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66 (Stating all ancient and pre-modern works in Western Assam dialect/Kamrupi dialect)

• Sengupta, Madhumita (2016). Becoming Assamese: Colonialism and New Subjectivities in Northeast India. Routledge. p. 100 (Stating antiquity of Kamrupi dialect and its major differences with Sibsagariya/Sibsagar dialect on which standard Assamese is based) etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Kamrupi dialect

• Keep first paragraph as it is. No change.
• Second paragraph:
  • "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji."
  • "This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry.[6]" → "The use of Kamrupi dialect in modern times has plummeted due to the prevalence of the standard variety though in recent times there has been a trend to use this in major media. (The quote from Kaliram Medhi is obviously taken out of context— Sankardev did not write in the Kamrupi dialect, but in the medieval dialect, often called Old Assamese)
• Keep the section Kamrupi_dialect#Features as it is, except:
  • Rename the section Kamrupi_dialect#Similarities_with_Eastern_Assamese to Difference with Eastern Assamese" because the section discusses the differences and not the similarities. Add section on similarities later when needed.
• Change the name of the section Kamrupi_dialect#Definition_of_the_region to "Kamrup region"
  • Remove all the text from this section, since it is already covered in Kamrup region. In its stead, we should have a short paragraph to be extended later. This is a sample paragraph: "The group of Kamrupi dialects is spoken in the Kamrup region, which has had a consistent administrative delineation since the 17th century, first under the Mughals, then under the Ahoms and later under the British and then Indian district of Undivided Kamrup. There are primarily three major dialects spoken in this region: Barpetia dialect in the west; Nalbaria dialect in the east and Palasbaria dialect in the south. These dialects form a dialect continuum within themselves and with the adjoining dialects of Goalparia dialect to the west and the Pati-Darrangia dialect to its east."
• The section Kamrupi_dialect#Scholarly_views is largely a POV fork and should be deleted.
• In the section Kamrupi_dialect#Literature:
  • Remove the picture of Charyapada, since it is closest to Kamarupi Prakrit; and the similarity if claimed by many languages.
  • Remove the first and the second paragraphs
  • Transfer the name of medieval writers from Kamrup region to the previous section (Kamrup region), after verifying the writers are indeed from Kamrup region.
  • Remove fourth paragraph— Sankardev was not from Kamrup and he did not use Kamrupi dialect in his writings—he used old literary Assamese.

Chaipau ( talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Kamarupi Prakrit

• Keep the first paragraph as it is. No change.
• In the second paragraph, remove "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.[7]". This quote is attributed wrongly—the author is Parikshit Hazarika (1968). This is effectively what Sharma (1978) has said and adds nothing else but confusion.
• Remove "Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects.[9][10]", because this is a repeat of "Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed.[5]" with a confusing set of citations.
• In section "Etymology of names" remove "Sukumar Sen and others calls it as old Kamrupi dialect;[12][13][14] the speech used in old Kamrup[12]" This sentence is trying to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi Prakrit; it attributes it to Sukumar Sen, whereas the author is Upendranath Goswami etc.
• Remove the picture of Nidhanpur plates, because it makes no sense to just display the plates without pointing out the "prakritism"; OTOH, if the prakritisms are available, then they should be presented in the caption.
• Add the following caption in the Charyapada picture "Charyapada, written between the 8th and 12th century, contains evidence of Bengali language, Assamese language, Oriya language and Maithili language; and is most likely contains the most direct evidence of Kamarupi Prakrit." If this caption is not acceptable, then we should drop the picture entirely.
• Remove the two last sections:
  • Kamarupi_Prakrit#Geographical_vicinity is a POV fork, that attempts to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi prakrit, and the paragraph is very convoluted.
  • Kamarupi_Prakrit#Works is also another POV fork that attempts the same thing. The aphorisms of Dak are found in east Indo-Aryan languages, adapted for modern usage.

Chaipau ( talk) 17:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator

Here is a summary of the contested points.

User: Bhaskarbhagawati has requested that Goswami, Medhi, and Sengupta be included.

User:Chaipau has requested five changes to Kamrupi dialect, and six changes to the articles on the old language.

We are in agreement that the first paragraph of each article is satisfactory.

Do the other editors agree to the specified changes? Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors

The first paragraphs (regional dialects, unattested etc.) are unsourced or sources not saying what it claimed, sources saying "first Indo-Aryan language of Assam". The contents of both the article are written reproducing what reliable sources saying, removing them as suggested by Chaipau lead to exclusion of scholarly viewpoints, unsourced content can be removed. Inclusion of all reliable sources will definitely depict Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi language are indeed same. So to summarise, in my opinion no sourced content should removed, both article should reproduce exactly what reliable source are saying etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Twelfth statement by moderator

Okay. Let's try to work through this, one paragraph at a time, for the two articles. We will start with the lede paragraph of each article. Will each editor please provide their proposed text for the first paragraph of each article? Then we will see whether we can work out differences in the first paragraphs by discussion or whether we have to take each of them to RFC.

Proposed changes to other paragraphs are permitted but not required at this point.

Non-specific complaints, such as that viewpoints are being excluded or that the article is biased, are forbidden, and are subject to zero tolerance. If an editor makes any non-specific complaints that I cannot deal with explicitly, I will go back to WP:ANI with a recommendation that that editor be topic-banned from Indian languages.

Okay. Provide your drafts for the first paragraph of each article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Twelfth statements by editors

Lede of old language

Kamrupi language was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam. It was sole literary language of the region till nineteenth century, subsequently lost its prestige and now become a dialect, spoken in modern Kamrup. ^{[1] [2]}

The eastern Magadhi Prakrit gave rise to four languages, Radhi, Varendari, Kamrupi and Vanga. ^[3] This Kamrupi language can be dated at least to first millennium, when deluge of literary activity occurred in North Bengal and Western Assam ^[4], and the ancestor of the North Bengal dialects (Kamta, Rajbanshi and Northern Deshi Bangla) began to develop. ^{[5] [6]} This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam. ^[7]

This apabhramsa gave rise to various modern eastern Indo-European languages like Assamese language ^{[8] [9]}, and significantly different from it in terms of phonology, morphology and vocables. ^{[10] [11]}

Lede of Kamrupi dialect

Kamrupi dialect (formerly Kamrupi language) ^[1] was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam, is also a modern dialect of Assamese language, that formerly enjoyed prestige status. ^{[2] [3] [4]}

Kamrupi is heterogeneous with three subdialects— West (Barpeta), Central (Nalbari) and South Kamrupi (Palashbari). ^[5] In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry. This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry. ^[6]

In more recent times, the South Kamrupi dialect has been used in the works of author Indira Goswami. Poet and nationalist Ambikagiri Raichoudhury also used Kamrupi in his works to great extent. ^[7] In 2018, the Kamrupi film Village Rockstars became the first from the region to be selected for India's official entry to the 91st Academy Awards. ^[8] भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph of Kamarupi Prakrit

• No change.
  • Any change should take into account that Kamarupi Prakrit is the article about the language in Kamarupa before 1250 AD, and is different from Kamrupi dialect.

First paragraph of Kamrupi dialect

• No change
  • Any change should take into account that Kamrupi dialect is the article about the modern dialect some evidence of which exists from 18th century.

I am not making any pointed refutation of Bhaskarbhagawati's proposed changes at this time.

Chaipau ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thirteenth Round

Two RFCs are now running on the lede paragraphs to the two articles. They will run for 30 days, and will resolve the matter of the lede paragraphs.

User:Chaipau has proposed a long list of changes to the two articles. Please read them over and indicate which you accept, which you want to compromise, and which you do not accept.

Proposed Changes to Kamrupi dialect

• Keep first paragraph as it is. No change.
• Second paragraph:
  • "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji."
  • "This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry.[6]" → "The use of Kamrupi dialect in modern times has plummeted due to the prevalence of the standard variety though in recent times there has been a trend to use this in major media. (The quote from Kaliram Medhi is obviously taken out of context— Sankardev did not write in the Kamrupi dialect, but in the medieval dialect, often called Old Assamese)
• Keep the section Kamrupi_dialect#Features as it is, except:
  • Rename the section Kamrupi_dialect#Similarities_with_Eastern_Assamese to Difference with Eastern Assamese" because the section discusses the differences and not the similarities. Add section on similarities later when needed.
• Change the name of the section Kamrupi_dialect#Definition_of_the_region to "Kamrup region"
  • Remove all the text from this section, since it is already covered in Kamrup region. In its stead, we should have a short paragraph to be extended later. This is a sample paragraph: "The group of Kamrupi dialects is spoken in the Kamrup region, which has had a consistent administrative delineation since the 17th century, first under the Mughals, then under the Ahoms and later under the British and then Indian district of Undivided Kamrup. There are primarily three major dialects spoken in this region: Barpetia dialect in the west; Nalbaria dialect in the east and Palasbaria dialect in the south. These dialects form a dialect continuum within themselves and with the adjoining dialects of Goalparia dialect to the west and the Pati-Darrangia dialect to its east."
• The section Kamrupi_dialect#Scholarly_views is largely a POV fork and should be deleted.
• In the section Kamrupi_dialect#Literature:
  • Remove the picture of Charyapada, since it is closest to Kamarupi Prakrit; and the similarity if claimed by many languages.
  • Remove the first and the second paragraphs
  • Transfer the name of medieval writers from Kamrup region to the previous section (Kamrup region), after verifying the writers are indeed from Kamrup region.
  • Remove fourth paragraph— Sankardev was not from Kamrup and he did not use Kamrupi dialect in his writings—he used old literary Assamese.

Chaipau ( talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Kamarupi Prakrit

• Keep the first paragraph as it is. No change.
• In the second paragraph, remove "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.[7]". This quote is attributed wrongly—the author is Parikshit Hazarika (1968). This is effectively what Sharma (1978) has said and adds nothing else but confusion.
• Remove "Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects.[9][10]", because this is a repeat of "Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed.[5]" with a confusing set of citations.
• In section "Etymology of names" remove "Sukumar Sen and others calls it as old Kamrupi dialect;[12][13][14] the speech used in old Kamrup[12]" This sentence is trying to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi Prakrit; it attributes it to Sukumar Sen, whereas the author is Upendranath Goswami etc.
• Remove the picture of Nidhanpur plates, because it makes no sense to just display the plates without pointing out the "prakritism"; OTOH, if the prakritisms are available, then they should be presented in the caption.
• Add the following caption in the Charyapada picture "Charyapada, written between the 8th and 12th century, contains evidence of Bengali language, Assamese language, Oriya language and Maithili language; and is most likely contains the most direct evidence of Kamarupi Prakrit." If this caption is not acceptable, then we should drop the picture entirely.
• Remove the two last sections:
  • Kamarupi_Prakrit#Geographical_vicinity is a POV fork, that attempts to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi prakrit, and the paragraph is very convoluted.
  • Kamarupi_Prakrit#Works is also another POV fork that attempts the same thing. The aphorisms of Dak are found in east Indo-Aryan languages, adapted for modern usage.

Thirteenth Statements by Editors

I am addressing all the points one by one. The proposed changes and my views on it are:

• The ledes of both the article are under RFC, so i will not comment on it.

• The second point of proposed change in older form of language will lead to removal of important viewpoint of Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti ( Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti, Journal of the Assam Research Society - Volume 18, 1968 P 81), according to them old language was not ' Prakrit' but 'dialect of Assam' mixed with Sanskrit and Prakrit languages, hence in my opinion 'Prakrit' cannot be used as suffix in title of old language.

In modern language, the proposed change will remove the viewpoint of Kaliram Medhi( Medhi, Kaliram (1988). Assamese grammar and origin of the Assamese language, p.84).

• The proposed third change to old language, i propose it to change to "this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese language", instead of removing it completely because it is sourced to reliable sources.

For modern language, 'Similarities with Eastern Assamese' section cannot changed to 'Differences with Eastern Assamese/Standard Assamese language' because as per our current sources Kamrupi language/dialect is significantly different from standard Assamese language based on eastern Assamese dialect in terms of phonology, morphology and vocables. Therefore, we need to see if there any similarities rather differences which is obvious.

• The fourth proposed change to old language, there three sources attributed to 'Old Kamrupi dialect', so no question of its removal.

For modern language, 'region' section required because the language was originally spoken in modern Kamrup, then North Bengal, Western Assam and central Assam, afterwards in North Bengal, entire Brahmaputra valley, parts of Bangladesh and Bhutan, addition of parts of Bihar and so on. Eventually now in modern Kamrup. Thus uncertainty of region requires region section.

• The fifth propose change to old language, the Nidhanpur plate was supposedly written in older language, hence the image of it can be used in the article symbolically.

For modern langauge, 'Scholarly views' section is about significant linguists viewpoints on the subject, removing them is removing important viewpoints, but there are scope of changes in its presentation.

• The propose sixth changes to old language, i have no objection to caption but it should not link to Assamese language, which is a new Indo-Aryan language (N.I.A), 8th century period attributed to 'Old Kamrupi language', the ancestor of standard Assamese language.

For modern language, the picture of Charyapada included as per quote of Upendranath Goswami, it should not be removed. (Goswami Upendranath (1970), A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese, Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies, p.4.) The first and second paragraph is sourced to last citation, should be kept. The name of medieval writers need to be included either in history or literature section, definitely not in region section. The fourth paragraph about medieval writer 'Sankaradeva' cannot be removed because it will again remove views of Kaliram Medhi.

• The seventh proposed change to old language, the sections 'Geographical vicinity' and 'works' cannot be removed because they are sourced to reliable sources ( Sukumar Sen, Grammatical sketches of Indian languages with comparative vocabulary and texts, Volume 1, 1975, P 31, Goswami, Golockchandra (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication, Gauhati University. p. 11, Medhi, Kaliram (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66, Choudhary, Abhay Kant (1971), Early Medieval Village in North-eastern India, A.D. 600-1200:Mainly a Socio-economic Study, Punthi Pustak (India), page 253).

Thus to summarise, the proposed removal of content of the both articles lead to exclusion of important viewpoints. Although, i am open to inclusion of other sources which contradicts them. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In defense of the proposed changes

I shall be providing point-to-point defense of the edit suggestions I have made. I shall be done within a day...and when I am done, I shall indicate it.

Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti: The reference is not the official position of the organization, but an article in the journal, authored by Parikshit Hazarika (1968). It makes the same point as that made by M M Sharma (1978), that there exists irregularities in the Sanskrit text of Kamarupa inscriptions, but his central assertion—that this indicates an Kamarupa Apabhramsha parallel to Magadha Apabhramsha—is no longer accepted. Subsequent and recent authors have continued to accept that a dialect of the Magadhi Apabhramsha is the origin of the KRNB lects and the Assamese language. Therefore, on the basis of WP:RS_AGE, WP:RSCONTEXT, since Kamarupa Prakrit is a later coinage and more accurate, it should be retained.

Chaipau ( talk) 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Round Fourteen: Moderator

I made a mistake somehow on the RFC on the old language, and the two versions were identical. That has been closed. I think that I have this time entered Version A and Version B correctly.

I will be reviewing previous postings shortly and will provide an update. Until then, conduct all discussion in the Threaded Discussion sections. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Round Fifteen: Statement by Moderator

It appears that User:Chaipau has five or six proposed changes to each of the two articles, and that User:Bhaskarbhagawati is satisfied with the articles. Is that correct?

Each user may identify one change to each article that they consider to have the highest priority. We will then start an RFC on each of those changes. If you are satisfied with the current content, you don't need to propose a change. Please list your proposed change in the section below. Do not reply to the other editor's changes. That discussion can be done in a No vote on the RFC or in the Threaded Discussion. Trying to discuss all of the changes at once gets nowhere. So each editor may propose one change to each article, in the space below. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Fifteenth Statements by Editors

Robert McClenon, indeed i disagree with proposed deletion of content secured by sources suggested by Chaipau, as said in my last statement, and i don't want to propose any newer changes except which are already under RFC. Also the publications of Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti are vetted. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm growing concerned about all these RFCs. We came to DR to have a tightly moderated discussion to keep everyone focused. Now, at the discussion on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit Bhaskarbhagawati has reverted back to their original position that the two articles shouldn't be separate, despite agreeing otherwise here and despite the evidence laid out. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statement by Moderator

I had thought that maybe we could make some progress toward resolving this dispute, but it appears that the issue is being raised again of whether to combine the two articles. Some of us thought that there was agreement that we would have two articles, one on the older language and one on the modern language or dialect. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I will give you one last choice. Do you want to discuss how to improve the two articles, or do you want to have a merge discussion to combine the two articles? If you choose to work to improve the two articles, you will not be allowed to complain about the decision seven years ago to split them, and if you do complain, I will go to Arbitration Enforcement and request that you be topic-banned from Indian languages for one year. If you choose to have a merge discussion, we will have a merge discussion, and if it keeps the two articles, you will be subject to being topic-banned from them. Now - Choose. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - You have 24 hours to decide which course we will take. If you do not decide within 24 hours, I will decide for you, and I will not permit you to go back. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Both of you have been notified again of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I have been patient, maybe too patient. I don't plan to be patient any longer, either with vague complaints about censorship, vague complaints that all viewpoints should be represented (which we already agree one), other vague complaints, or side complaining about the history of the articles. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Chaipau - Within 48 hours, please identify one change to each article that has the highest priority. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statements by Editors

I would like to suggest the top items from Round Thirteen.

• Kamrupi dialect: "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji."
• Kamarupi Prakrit: In the second paragraph, remove "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.[7]".

Chaipau ( talk) 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, i have no intention to act against recommendations of wp:drn as Chaipau and Aeusoes portraying. I just briefly mentioned about history of this issue for newer editors commentating on RFC's. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Seventeenth Statement by Moderator

I would like to get this dispute resolution wrapped up. I have started two RFCs, one on each subject. I would like to know whether the participants are willing to resume discussion on the article talk pages without moderation. Unless there is an objection, in 48 hours I will suspend moderation and allow discussion to resume while this case is on hold. We will see whether regular discussion is working. If it is working, good. If it doesn't work, I may resume moderated discussion, but will more likely either ask User:Abecedare to intervene or will file a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Seventeenth Statements by Editors

@ Robert McClenon: I would request a moderated discussion if it is possible. Otherwise the discussions over the last seven years have been circular and repetitive. This has happened for every singly minor point. I fear any un-moderated discussion will give us nothing. I believe that the 44 days of moderated discussion has yielded more resolution than the last seven years. Just my two cents. Chaipau ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, i will not object you as you have addressed major points brought here. But before (if) you close this discussion, i like to ask that if we have disputes of same nature on other articles (say exclusion of major viewpoints), can this discussion can be cited. I asking this because i have similiar issues in queue with the same editor, e.g. in Assamese people. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Eighteenth Statement by Moderator

Okay. If it is requested that moderated discussion continue, I will continue moderated discussion. I will be slowing down the pace of moderated discussion. I will be starting up to four more RFCs in about one week. Each editor may request one more RFC on each article. (If any additional editors want to be added as parties and request RFCs, I will add them, which might result in more than four RFCs.) My objective is to keep the number of RFCs open at a given time to a manageable number.

A few reminders are in order. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Casting aspersions on the motives or good faith of editors is forbidden. Personal attacks are forbidden. When I say that casting aspersions and personal attacks are forbidden, there will be no warnings. If they happen, I will request immediate sanctions.

I will be drawing up a revised set of rules for this moderation in the next few days. Do not edit the articles. You may and should discuss on the article talk pages. To that extent, the ANI restriction is modified. Discussion on the article talk pages must follow talk page guidelines and may not involve aspersions or personal attacks.

Within five days, each editor should identify one more RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Eighteenth Statements by Editors

Robert McClenon, thank you. Your conditions are nothing unusual, and in normal times that is what it should be. I would rather see this take six month to resolve than continue the situation for another seven years. Chaipau ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am suggesting changing the title of Kamrupi dialect to Kamrupi language as a natural language, and as per works of U.N Goswami in line of Sylheti language which is considered dialect of Bengali language. The old language article is now competing between 'Old Kamrupi language' and 'Kamarupi Prakrit', so 'Kamrupi language' is free to use now. Historically this article was named "Kamrupi" but it was changed to Kamrupi dialect in 2012 citing title of U.N Goswami's work, but inside of his book he called it as Kamrupi language. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to be added as a party, and to request that the number of RsfC be kept to a minimum. Keeping up with all the relevant pages is already becoming something of a burden. However, now the Euro elections are over I may have a little more time. Per Chaipau, this matter really needs resolving. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 19:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In meantime, i maybe not able to contribute till 15.06.2019 (although i expect to back early). I did not expected that this DRN last that long at the time of filing. I have faith that all involved editors take it foreward rationally or put it on hold for sometime, as volunteer permits. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nineteenth Statement by Moderator

User:Richard Keatinge - You already are a party to this case. What matter do you in particular want resolved?

Each editor may submit one more RFC request now.

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I had also expected that this would be resolved by now. Other editors advise me that this controversy has been going on for seven years. If you don't want this discussion to continue for a few more months, I think that other editors would be willing to have you agree to a topic-ban. If you want this discussion put on hold, please explain why it needs to be put on hold. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Be sure to !vote in favor of any RFCs that you have requested. Since I am the originator, and I am neutral, your request will not be counted as support. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nineteenth Statements by Editors

Robert McClenon good evening, i am currently very busy in some important things because of which i maybe not able to fully focus in our discussion. If you disagree, i will try to comeback here once a day. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: I am not sure whether you want us to vote in the RfCs or not. The "!" seems to suggest you don't want us to vote. I have not been voting, though I have participated in the "Threaded discussion" section. Chaipau ( talk) 10:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Twentieth Statement by Moderator

I never said that participants should not vote in the RFCs. I did say, in response to a suggestion that participants not vote in the RFCs, that participants should vote in the RFCs. Each editor may propose one more RFC to each article.

I determine what the rules are. I don't want any parties trying to tweak the rules to their advantage.

I have no intention of putting this on hold unless there is agreement by all of the participants that it should be put on hold. If the participants want to conclude the moderated discussion, they may do so, in which case they will agree to be bound by everything that has been decided, or that will be decided by any ongoing RFCs, RMs, et cetera. I am not putting this on hold unless there is a very good reason. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Twentieth Statements by Editors

@ Robert McClenon: Thanks for the clarification—I just wanted to know what are rules are. I do not think we should put this on hold. We have had this issue in the past and the process(es) then stalled. I don't want that to happen here and look forward to a resolution. Chaipau ( talk) 01:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest articles (on old and modern form) should restored to stable versions (i.e. long standing version before edit warring), because there are major changes made to those articles, thus issue brought here. It should remain so atleast untill resolved under DRN. The versions available in January 2019 will work for this purpose. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: user:Bhaskarbhagawati has claimed in a separate talk page that the issues related to that page is part of this DRN process and inserted many references there. [9]. He claims this on the basis on the seventh statement by the moderator here ( [10]) My understanding is that dispute resolution process in here has nothing to do with the issues in that page. Therefore, I request your determination on this. Thanks! Chaipau ( talk) 03:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, i referred to general principle of "inclusion of major viewpoint", as stated in this DRN discussion. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not controversial to suggest that major academic viewpoints should be included. Your viewpoint, per immense discussion, is supported by out-of-context remarks that do not address the issue. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This arguement can be used as justification for exclusion of any important viewpoint. But as said if there is disagreement to that principle once again (otherwise it saved lot of effort for all), then as suggested by someone there it need to brought here. Also, it maybe not allowed to discuss a unrelated subject in that length in this thread. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-First Statement by Moderator

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - What exactly are you asking be changed? Exactly what change to one of the articles are you asking to have rolled back? Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Richard Keatinge, User:Chaipau - Are either you or anyone else requesting that a change to one of the articles be rolled back? Exactly what is being requested? Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It has already been established that all academic viewpoints should be included. Is there a question about the inclusion of an academic viewpoint? Please be specific. Vague complaints and vague comments are not useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reply here within 24 hours. If there is a question about changes to the article or about the inclusion or exclusion of viewpoints, we need to identify it and resolve it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-First Statements by Editors

@ Robert McClenon: I am not requesting any change. The issue, on a different subject, went through an RfC recently and it was settled ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAssamese_people&type=revision&diff=893523107&oldid=891769625). But since it ended not to user:Bhaskarbhagawati's liking, he is trying to re-litigate. I would request you not to include that issue in this process. I apologize for bringing it here. Chaipau ( talk) 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not requesting any rollback. To comment further I would have to know exactly what version is proposed to be restored. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue he brought in here is same as current one i.e. "exclusion of academic viewpoint" in another article Assamese people. I am supposed to bring this issue to DRN as per advice of a editor there. The issue is " Dravidian people migration in Assam", sources ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]} for which they are not allowing to include in the article. I am sorry if i inappropriately cited this discussion for the principle. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: The discussion that user:Bhaskarbhagawati started a couple of days ago has been closed as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAssamese_people&type=revision&diff=900285200&oldid=900207257 FYI, user:Richard Keatinge. Chaipau ( talk) 17:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As for our current discussion on "Kamrupi language", i don't like to make any further request for change but i like to link authoritative work of Upendranath Goswami here also, which can be helpful for volunteer for any closing comments before he closes this DRN whenever he thinks fit. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-Second Statement by Moderator

Are the editors, both of the principal editors, requesting that this DRN be closed, or that it continue? If closed, is there agreement to accept the results of the RFCs? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-Second Statements by editors

As said earlier i have no further request for change, and i will accept the RFCs, thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please ignore the digression of our attention to Talk:Assamese people. We would like to continue this DRN process regarding Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect to its logical conclusion.

If a further request for change is due, then my request is change to the second paragraph of the lede in Kamrupi dialect

• "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji."
• "This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry.[6]" → "The use of Kamrupi dialect in modern times has plummeted due to the prevalence of the standard variety though in recent times there has been a trend to use this in major media. (The quote from Kaliram Medhi is obviously taken out of context— Sankardev did not write in the Kamrupi dialect, but in the medieval dialect, often called Old Assamese)

Chaipau ( talk) 22:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It is cited from Kaliram Medhi. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It may indeed be cited in that article, but it isn't quoted in the article and I do not plan to scan the entire oeuvre of Kaliram Medhi to find out what you mean. Without an appropriate reference and context, I personally intend to accept the opinion of Chaipau on this point. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As you are very much involved in the subject, i thought you have seen that important work, nevertheless see Kaliram Medhi, Page 84 भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, that supports Chaipau's verdict. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the justification of replacing cited content with unsourced information. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Per Chaipau in this section "The quote from Kaliram Medhi is obviously taken out of context— Sankardev did not write in the Kamrupi dialect, but in the medieval dialect, often called Old Assamese." Richard Keatinge ( talk) 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you, all pre-modern literary works of Brahmaputra valley and adjoining areas are in Kamrupi/Western Assam dialect ( Kaliram Medhi, page 66). भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should simply quote Chaipau again: "what is being attempted here is the establishment of the Kamrupi dialect as the fountainhead of the Assamese language and the KRNB lects (by equating Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect, for instance). This has no linguistic or real world political basis." Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, i am quoting the source (which is agreed here to reincluded in the article) in current context. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I'm having trouble in establishing exactly what you're now arguing for. I know you're quoting the source. However, it does not appear to mean what you want it to mean. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am quoting in context of Sankaradeva, who is a medieval literary figure from Brahmaputra valley. Anyway, as i have no more request for change, i signing off from this DRN. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 22:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please consider completing this DRN process. I don't think this dispute can continue any further. We require a resolution, so we can improve these articles, beyond the listed change requests. Chaipau ( talk) 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As i don't have much to contribute to this discussion, i suggest we expand the articles on the basis of relevant sources, if there are contradiction between sources, we will include both views. If you want to make any changes to articles, please do so with attribution without excluding cited content. If we follow basic principle cited in this DRN, which you agreed, we don't have to come here again भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That was a good faith appeal to you to participate in the process and not drop out; it wasn't an invitation for you to set the rules here. Sorry. Chaipau ( talk) 02:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting, i am no one to make rules here, i just referred to what is decided here and offered compromise for future in case of such situation, otherwise it is vicious circle. I made my part of relevant request for change, what you want me do now ? भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I would like your cooperation in avoiding another seven years of wrangling. I note repeated attempts to dredge up sources that use labels similar to "Kamrupi". I note that such labels have indeed been used to describe a series of languages and dialects that developed in a wide and variable area, for more than a millennium. And I note that, in context, these sources do not say or even imply that these languages and dialects are usefully described as being the same language. I would like the repeated attempts to describe them all as the same language, in Wikipedia's voice, to cease. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The articles are in relative peace since 2012 untill recently when large cited content removed along with sources (so seven years theory is not applicable here), for which we have this DRN to resolve that. Anybody is free to remove uncited content, but it is not vice versa, as per consensus. You are asking for removal of particular viewpoints which are agreed to include here, thus it is becoming circular, unproductive and tiring talk after more than two months of discussion. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that all of these languages and dialects are most usefully described as one language is not supported by any sources. The discussion is indeed becoming unproductive. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That was never my suggestion, my original suggestion was the two articles in question were originally one article (and one language) as per sources, which i am not pursuing further because consensus is against it. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Good. So, with my apologies to the moderator for this digression, let us proceed to resolve this matter. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-Third Statement by Moderator

It appears that the parties are saying that they are ready to conclude this moderated discussion. If anyone has any specific further changes, please identify them within 48 hours. If no further changes are requested within 48 hours, I will close this discussion, with a finding that consensus has been achieved, and that editing against consensus will be disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-Third Statements by Editors

It is my impression, and hope, that we have reached a consensus on the major points. I hope that it will be helpful to list them here:

• The articles Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are most usefully kept separate, and are appropriately titled, though Proto-Kamarupa language may in due course be better than Kamrupi Prakrit.
• No more WP:GAME such as the usage of template "redirect" for these and related articles.

(And, I trust, we positively agree that the above system of nomenclature in no way denies the continuities between these two groups of lects, and other lects. Nor does it offer any disrespect to the literary achievements expressed in mediaeval and modern times, in related Kamrupi lects.)

• Per Tenth Statements above:

• In Kamrupi dialect

Keep first paragraph as it is. No change.

Second paragraph: "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji."

"This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry.[6]" → "The use of Kamrupi dialect in modern times has plummeted due to the prevalence of the standard variety though in recent times there has been a trend to use this in major media.

Keep the section Kamrupi_dialect#Features as it is, except:

Rename the section Kamrupi_dialect#Similarities_with_Eastern_Assamese to Difference with Eastern Assamese" because the section discusses the differences and not the similarities. Add section on similarities later when needed.

Change the name of the section Kamrupi_dialect#Definition_of_the_region to "Kamrup region".

Remove all the text from this section, since it is already covered in Kamrup region. In its stead, we should have a short paragraph to be extended later. This is a sample paragraph: "The group of Kamrupi dialects is spoken in the Kamrup region, which has had a consistent administrative delineation since the 17th century, first under the Mughals, then under the Ahoms and later under the British and then Indian district of Undivided Kamrup. There are primarily three major dialects spoken in this region: Barpetia dialect in the west; Nalbaria dialect in the east and Palasbaria dialect in the south. These dialects form a dialect continuum within themselves and with the adjoining dialects of Goalparia dialect to the west and the Pati-Darrangia dialect to its east."

The section Kamrupi_dialect#Scholarly_views is largely a POV fork and should be deleted.

In the section Kamrupi_dialect#Literature:

Remove the picture of Charyapada, since it is closest to Kamarupi Prakrit; and the similarity is claimed by many languages. Remove the first and the second paragraphs

Transfer the name of medieval writers from Kamrup region to the previous section (Kamrup region), after verifying the writers are indeed from Kamrup region.

Remove fourth paragraph — Sankardev was not from Kamrup and he did not use Kamrupi dialect in his writings — he used old literary Assamese.

• Changes to Kamarupi Prakrit

Keep the first paragraph as it is. No change.

In the second paragraph, remove "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.[7]".

Remove "Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects.[9][10]", because this is a repeat of "Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed.[5]" with a confusing set of citations.

In section "Etymology of names" remove "Sukumar Sen and others calls it as old Kamrupi dialect;[12][13][14] the speech used in old Kamrup[12]" This sentence is trying to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi Prakrit; it attributes it to Sukumar Sen, whereas the author is Upendranath Goswami etc.

Remove the picture of Nidhanpur plates, because it makes no sense to just display the plates without pointing out the "prakritism"; OTOH, if the prakritisms are available, then they should be presented in the caption.

Add the following caption in the Charyapada picture "Charyapada, written between the 8th and 12th century, contains evidence of Bengali language, Assamese language, Oriya language and Maithili language; and it most likely contains the most direct evidence of Kamarupi Prakrit." If this caption is not acceptable, then we should drop the picture entirely.

Remove the two last sections:

Kamarupi_Prakrit#Geographical_vicinity is a POV fork, that attempts to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi prakrit, and the paragraph is very convoluted.

Kamarupi_Prakrit#Works is also another POV fork that attempts the same thing. The aphorisms of Dak are found in east Indo-Aryan languages, adapted for modern usage.

Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The above suggested changes are untenable as they replace cited content with unsourced information, which will also against consensus to include all viewpoints on this subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: I agree with the changes that user:Richard Keatinge has recommended. From my understanding we have the following conclusions:

• The two articles (lects) are different.
• The RfC concludes that the name Kamarupi Prakrit stands.

We have the following RfCs open:

• Move Kamrupi dialect
• The ledes of the two articles.

Even though some of the recommended changes in the Tenth Statements are yet to be addressed, as listed by Richard Keatinge above, they are consistent with the above two conclusions for which we already have consensus.

Going forward, I would request avoidance of WP:GAME, and help growing these article further with more critical information. But if you require us to RfC the rest of the list (from the tenth statement), I shall definitely cooperate.

Chaipau ( talk) 19:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe proposed RFCs on such changes are in disagreement with WP:V, WP:NOR and the principle cited in last statement, just my thoughts. As we are in concluding stage, for last time i like to ask the volunteer about a situation when we have different sources, which says differently about the same content of subject.

In this context, i like to provide an example of "dialects of Kamrupi language". Upendranath Goswami wrote extensively on this subject and named the dialects "West Kamrupi, Central Kamrupi and South Kamrupi", which is (source) quoted in the article, but other editor wants to change the names to "Barpetiya, Nalbariya and Palasbariya" according to his unlisted sources. I objected on grounds that they are spoken in larger areas, than those towns (Barpeta, Nalbari and Palashbari). Goswami too named them after the region of their usage. I am open to compromise on any such situations, as i stated in last statements, nonetheless closing comments by volunteer will be helpful in peacefully tackling disputes of such nature without bothering DRN everytime. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Goswami 1970 is based on his 1958 PhD. The primary source of his PhD is himself, an utterly unscientific methodology in the contemporary context. There is no reason for us to allow Goswami 1970 to hold the study of Kamrupi dialects at ransom and not let it move forward.
• Nalbari and Barpeta are themselves districts now. They are not towns.
• Barpetia dialect, Nalbaria dialect are standard names. Look up the references. These dialects have been widely studied in recent times, especially in the series "North East Indian Linguistics" edited by Stephen Morey. Your attempt at trying to fossilize the knowledge of these dialects to a state from 1958 has resulted in 7 wasted years in Wikipedia.

Chaipau ( talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-Fourth Statement by Moderator

There is back-and-forth discussion above. I had said that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted.

Sincere apologies. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati has a complaint that proposed RFCs are in disagrement with WP:V and WP:NOR. Do they have a different suggestion? I can close this discussion or continue it. Generalized complaints are not useful. Are we ready to close this discussion, or is there a further matter to address? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the discussion is ready for closure. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-Fourth Statements by Editors

@ Robert McClenon: the back and forth is regrettable. It should not happen again.

• Bhaskarbhagawati has always maintained that his opposing sides have WP:V and WP:NOR issues. ( [11]). He just reiterated his argument—the RfCs have no such finding. OTOH, it is everyone else who has problems with his claims, such as user:Msasag [12] who is not even involved with this discussion. I urge you to please read user:Msasag's message.
• I am not sure we have come to a decision. We have not got beyond the first few change requests. I request you adopt a fast-track mechanism other than RfCs to resolve this since there are a number of other change requests. We could probably take the current resolutions into account and build on that.
• user:Bhaskarbhagawati will continue his one-man filibuster in the future. He has managed to drag this resolution process for months and everyone is tired and want to end it, with pretty much status quo. Please note that we have tried to accommodate the special interests of just one person for the last seven years. Can we afford to go on doing this? His interests lie not just in these two articles but other articles as well, where he has WP:CFORK-ed with gay abandon (e.g. Kamarupa_of_Bhaskaravarman, Kamarupa_–_Late_to_end_period, etc.)

Chaipau ( talk) 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, i am really thankful to you for conducting this dispute successfully for such long time. Sometimes it tested your patience, but you driven it through beautifully. I agree with them that its ripe to close the discussion with consensus reached, which i believe are:

• All academic viewpoints on the subject need to be included in the articles.
• Include contradicting academic views side by side.
• Two separate articles need to be maintained for old and modern languages.
• Exclude all unsourced material from the articles.

My special and warm thanks to Abecedare for his continuous guidance and looking into the whole issue in humane manner. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-Fifth Statement by Moderator

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I have said in the past that vague statements such as "All academic viewpoints on the subject need to be included" (which is already a matter of Wikipedia policies) and "Include contradicting academic views" are not helpful. Please clarify exactly what if any change you want made.

Does each editor have any more comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-fifth Statements by Editors

None from me. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no additional comment to make. My comment in Twenty-fourth continues to be current. Chaipau ( talk) 11:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon i believe this DRN achieved its original goal, hence no more comments from me, thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:04, 15 June 2019 (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

• Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick#Superfluous material in Vigano section ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PluniaZ ( talk · contribs)
• Display name 99 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Is the deleted sentence in this diff supported by the source that is given?

Diff of disputed sentence

The given source says nothing to the effect that supporters of anyone countered anyone or anything, does not affirm whether any sanctions were official, and says nothing about sanctions being loosely enforced.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have repeatedly explained on the article talk page that the deleted sentence is not supported by the given source, but Display name 99 ( talk) refuses to budge.

How do you think we can help?

Can a volunteer please take a quick look at the source and explain to Display name 99 ( talk) that it does not support the disputed sentence? Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Display name 99

The Catholic Herald article states that it is possible to believe that some sort of restrictions were imposed on McCarrick that were not heavily enforced. It concludes with a strong suggestion that Vigano is telling the truth. I'd be fine with replacing the words "Vigano's defenders" if that's causing a problem, but the statement that some have suggested that there were restrictions that McCarrick ignored and that Benedict XVI didn't enforce is clearly supported by the source. Here's another article from LifeSiteNews, a Traditional Catholic website, which vigorously defends Vigano and advances a similar theory. LifeSiteNews is not a trusworthy source for factual information, especially if it happens to be controversial, but it is useful to understand what supporters of Vigano are saying. This article is fine to use in my opinion because it's explanation of the sanctions not being strictly enforced is in line with the Catholic Herald article. I strongly believe that this view should be represented in order to comply with WP:NPOV. Display name 99 ( talk) 17:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Theodore Edgar_McCarrick#Superfluous_material_in_Vigano_section discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Is this a request for a volunteer to look at the material and offer a Third Opinion, which can be provided at Third Opinion, or a request for moderated discussion? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A majority of users on the Talk Page have voted for a version of the article that does not include the disputed sentence, so I think we can drop this dispute resolution request. Thank you. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 15:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, this is a complete lie. The sentence has not been discussed at all, and yet you removed that along with several other paragraphs without talk page consensus. I will be restoring. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:05, 15 June 2019 (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

• Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick#RfC: Superfluous material in a biography of a living person that is not supported by the sources provided ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Display name 99 ( talk · contribs)
• PluniaZ ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There were two paragraphs in the article that PluniaZ wanted removed but which I wanted to remain. We unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement on the talk page before PluniaZ launched an RfC and eventually reached one while the RfC was still open. The problem was that neither PluniaZ nor myself shut the RfC down afterwards.

An editor later weighed in and agreed that the content should be removed. However, the content that they stated should be removed was the content that existed prior to our compromise. PluniaZ used that as an excuse to go back on our agreement and remove the content that was agreed to during the compromise, which was modified to assuage their objections. An administrator added the compromise version to the article while it was under protection on our mutual request. To me, this is extremely questionable both because the editor who voted in the RfC based their response on the original version before the compromise and because the RfC was still technically open. Here is the diff of the removal.

I closed the RfC just before making this request.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The issue was discussed extensively on the talk page. I requested the intervention of the only administrator active at the article, but she doesn't seem to want to get involved.

How do you think we can help?

I'm looking to see if someone can make a judgment as to the validity of the "consensus" for removal that PluniaZ claimed existed for removal while also possibly offering an opinion on whether or not the content in question is appropriate for the article and supported by the sources.

Summary of dispute by PluniaZ

Both Display name 99 and I continued to make edits to the paragraphs under dispute while the RfC was up. Neither of us agreed to a final version of the paragraphs, or whether to include them at all. After 9 days had gone by, we received only one response to the RfC, who agreed with my proposal to remove both paragraphs. Nevertheless, Display name 99 continued to make his own edits to the paragraphs. Given that it did not appear that anyone else was going to respond to the RfC, I removed both paragraphs in the belief that this was the consensus that had been reached on the Talk Page. I am not sure why Display name 99 has closed the RfC if he believes consensus has not been reached. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 14:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick#RfC: Superfluous material in a biography of a living person that is not supported by the sources provided discussion

• Volunteer Note - Is this a concern about the behavior of an editor, or a request for a Third Opinion, or a question that can be best resolved by reinstating the RFC, or a request for a moderator to assist in reaching a compromise? If this is a concern about the behavior of an editor, this forum does not hear conduct disputes. If a Request for Comments is in order, a new RFC can be used. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the opening part of this forum states: "This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes." So I'm not sure what you mean by saying that this isn't the place to resolve content disputes. The main question that I want somebody here to resolve is whether PluniaZ's removal of the disputed paragraphs was consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. If this isn't the appropriate place for such a concern, please let me know what is. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - User:Display name 99 - Conduct disputes and content disputes are two different types of disputes. In fact, all Wikipedia disputes are either content disputes or conduct disputes. A content dispute is about an article. A conduct dispute is about an editor. This forum is a place to resolve small disputes about what is in an article, not disputes about the behavior of an editor. The removal of paragraphs from an article is a content dispute. Whether the editor misbehaved in removing the paragraphs is a conduct dispute. If there was a Request for Comments, it is probably the best way to resolve a content dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'm sorry, it appears I misread your response. The issue is over potential misbehavior in removing the paragraphs, which is a conduct dispute. Where would you recommend I go for that? Display name 99 ( talk) 02:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Display name 99 - Conduct disputes are normally reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I was afraid you'd say that. I've had some crazy experiences over there in the past and was trying to avoid it, but I'll give it a shot. Thanks. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Hold on. That says that the misbehavior has to be "chronic." I wouldn't describe it as such. It's just one article. I think I'll try edit warring instead. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Display name 99 - Do not engage in edit warring. If you mean that you wish to report edit warring, you may report it at the edit-warring noticeboard. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, NO!!! I meant I'd try the edit-warring noticeboard. Sorry that came off wrong! It's late and I'm not reading and typing as well as I should. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:37, 12 June 2019 (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

• Talk:Minute Maid Park#Merger proposal ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The C of E ( talk · contribs)
• WhisperToMe ( talk · contribs)
• GenQuest ( talk · contribs)
• Oldsanfelipe ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Tal's Hill is a former feature of Minute Maid Park that was removed in 2016. Tal's Hill had its own article until 28 February 2007, when it was merged into the Minute Maid Park article. The C of E recreated the article on 3 March 2017. I proposed merging on 10 October 2018. Oldsanfelipe supported the merger as long as all the information from the standalone article was kept in the Minute Maid Park article. WhisperToMe recommended merging all the Tal's Hill information into the Minute Maid Park article and then waiting to see if more information were added which would necessitate spinning it back out, and that is a clear support for merging from WhisperToMe as well. GenQuest completed the merger on 25 March 2019, indicating support for the merge from GenQuest as well. That's four people in favor of merger (including myself), only one person opposed. The C of E reverted GenQuest's merger, claiming "no consensus for a move." I had not seen GenQuest's attempted merger when I merged the articles yesterday, and The C of E reverted my merger 8 minutes later, claiming because three of the comments in the discussion were from me that was not consensus, and claimed the discussion was WP:STALE and if I wanted to merge, I would have to make a proper proposal (which I had already done in October). The WP:STALE link The C of E provided relates to old unfinished draft articles on User Pages, it has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with setting some kind of expiration date for merger proposals.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made a proper merger proposal, and even though there was already 3 to 1 consensus in favor of merging, I waited nearly 8 months to complete the merger to see if anyone other than The C of E would oppose the merger (no one did). Since The C of E's behavior concerning this article is starting to appear tendentious and OWNy, I think it is necessary and appropriate to now escalate to this board.

How do you think we can help?

First, by weighing in on The C of E's argument that the October 2018 merger proposal and resulting 3 to 1 consensus for merging is stale, and confirming that it has not passed some "expiration date".

Second, by weighing in on whether there is indeed consensus for a merger, and/or providing a larger body of consensus either for or against a merger.

Summary of dispute by The C of E

First off, I'll correct the IP's claim that I created the article in 2007]. This is false, I did not create it then, it was created by me in 2017. There was no 3-1 consensus. You had 1 for (by the IP), 1 against (from me), one who gave an "either-way" response and one who suggested a possible alternative but not definitively specifying what their opinion was. Furthermore, he mis-characterizes me as relying on "I didn't know" when I clearly stated that WP:CCC and that it would be WP:UNDUE if merged and only said I wasn't aware of any prior decision as a throwaway line. As for STALE, the last comment made in the discussion was in October which to me indicates the debate has fizzled out and there is no agreement for changes. Then suddenly the IP declares they have consensus and made moves when no such consensus exists despite the fact when the debate had been dead for 8 months prior. If they want a broader consensus properly, then they should have relisted rather than make the move they did here. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 22:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The date above has been altered by another IP to change the date, here is the link to the original claim. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 06:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

it was a typo, I meant to put that you had recreated it 3 March 2017 but accidentally typed 2007, so when I saw you point out the year was wrong, I corrected it. Chill out 2600:1700:D6E0:65E0:71A8:D7A9:CC52:D084 ( talk) 13:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by WhisperToMe

Summary of dispute by GenQuest

The proposed merger sat in the que for about seven months or so, not unusual for the merger noticeboard, as there is often long que-lines. I edit merge requests as I can, and am generally neutral in the process, although I may have an opinion about the request(s). The consensus when I viewed the discussion, imo, was to merge, and I proceeded to do so. There is no time limit on Wikipedia, and I certainly did not consider the discussion stale, just finished and waiting to happen. Since no one else in that months long time-frame of that request sitting in the que considered the proposal a bad thing, it seemed proper to proceed with the request, adhering to one participants' condition that no referenced content be lost. That is when I proceeded to enact the merge, and closed the PM noticeboard request out. (I, however, did not close the discussion.) The merger was reversed shortly afterward, which sometimes happens. I leave it to the other participants of the original discussion, and the board here, to indicate what the future course should be. I, for one, believe it to be proper that the merge occur. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Oldsanfelipe

Talk:Minute Maid_Park#Merger_proposal discussion

• Volunteer Note - I have a few comments. First, there is a formal process for discussing proposed mergers. It appears that the filing party took most of the informal steps for a merge discussion, but did not actually institute a formal merger discussion. See WP:Merging for instructions. Rather than discussing here, the next step is a formal merger process. Any consensus is indeed now stale and should be repeated. Second, the filing unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account. While Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not require registering an account, they are likely not to be counted properly in assessing a formal consensus. IP addresses do shift (although some unregistered editors know beyond knowledge that their addresses are more reliable than accounts). Third, a merger proposal does not appear to be the sort of discussion for which moderated discussion leading to compromise is likely to be productive. Either the consensus is to merge, or it is not to merge. The filing editor is advised to register an account, and is also advised to request a formal merger proposal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

On your comments about the process for discussing proposed mergers, I did "Step 1: Create a discussion", "Step 2: Tag the relevant pages," "Step 3: Discuss the merger". So please help me understand why you think I did not actually institute a formal merger discussion? I guess the discussion wasn't formally closed per "Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus", however GenQuest's going ahead with the merger seems to roughly satisfy "In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion." On this idea of the consensus being "stale", can you please cite the actual policy/guidelines where you're getting this from? 2600:1700:D6E0:65E0:347F:6A4A:2840:4F60 ( talk) 17:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - I see that most of the steps of the merger process were followed. There was not a formal closure, and, when there is any disagreement, a formal closure is not just a formality. It is not optional, but essential. Therefore: Start the merger process over, and get a formal closure. If you need to request a formal closure at WP:AN, I will assist you in requesting a formal closure at WP:AN. A formal closure is not just a formality when there is disagreement. Start the merger process over and get a formal closure. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. 73.32.38.72 ( talk) 14:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I had one a long time ago (long since forgotten the password) and was a "regular contributor", didn't care for the experience. Happy to correct something here and there as I notice it when I'm reading Wikipedia articles, but no interest in going back to that, and as I understand it, it is one of the Founding Principles that I'm not required to ^[1]. 73.32.38.72 ( talk) 13:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(Volunteer Note - Although the IP is not required to register an account, the opinions of unregistered editors is typically discounted in RFCs and Requested Moves. The unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account if they want their opinion to be taken into account. If not, not. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You’ve said it three times now, you’ve made your “strong advisements” clear, I’ve made it clear that I’ve heard them and that I have the experience with a registered account to know whether it’s for me or not, so you can let it go. 2600:1700:D6E0:65E0:45D3:950A:D3EF:EA03 ( talk) 02:00, 15 June 2019 (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

• Talk:EOKA#Death toll ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cinadon36 ( talk · contribs)
• Dr.K. ( talk · contribs)
• Khirurg ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Discussion on adding info about the number of fatalities caused by EOKA's actions. I am advocating for including the numbers of fatalities by EOKA as presented by Heinz A. Richter. Other users claim that it is POV and shouldn't be included in the article. My response to that is it is not POV, it is just facts and numbers. Moreover, if it were POV, we could attribute. Another objection is that it is hard to clarify who died because of EOKA actions or during EOKA struggle. The answer to that claim is that it is not up to us to determine who should we enlist to the number of fatalities. Richter writes: "the official catalogue mentions the victims of EOKA between April the 1st 1955 and March 1959" (translation is mine, the book is in Greek, Heinz A. Richter History of Cyprus, Estia, Athens, 2011, pp=977-78) One can also have a look at page 979, there is a table with the injuries and fatalities by EOKA. Cinadon 36 04:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked users to participate in the Talk Page and asked for help at 3rd Opinion, which was invalid as the discussion at TalkPage was not extensive, moreover, more than two users have contributed.

How do you think we can help?

Should the article contain information about the fatalities caused by EOKA, as presented by RS ( Heinz A. Richter), or no because of POV related issues? Or could we change the wording?

Summary of dispute by Dr.K.

Basically, I completely agree with Khirurg's statement just below. Articles about military or paramilitary organisations don't include casualty tables, and for many good reasons. Can anyone imagine what would happen if there were tables for casualties allegedly caused by the British military or the US army in the various conflicts they participated in? Adding a casualty table to the EOKA article is a preposterously POV idea. Why doesn't the OP try to add a Cyprus conflict casualty table to the British Armed Forces article? What are the inclusion criteria for such a table? Nobody knows. Also David Carter was a member of the British military who also wrote a book calling EOKA Aphrodite's Killers. What kind of preposterously biased source is the OP trying to push, and for what bizarre POV reason? Dr. K. 08:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I saw that the OP has given what he thinks is a response to my arguments and those of Khirurg. I think discussing this with the OP is useless. The very reason we are here is to elicit the opinions of other editors. Thus, talking amongst ourselves is an utter waste of time, since it has been established that we cannot agree, and this is why we are at DRN. Therefore, I will neither be replying to nor discussing anything with the OP. Dr. K. 10:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Khirurg

Cinadon36 is bizarrely insisting on adding a "death toll" section, despite the fact that organizations don't have "death tolls". Even more bizarre he is insisting on including EOKA members killed by the British, i.e. blaming EOKA for their own deaths. Even more bizarrely he is insisting that this is all perfectly NPOV. Worst of all, the source he is using is a TRNC attache. I have looked at other similar articles, e.g. IRA, ETA, PKK, and none have a "death toll". Anyway, this has all been handled at the talkpage, there is no grounds for a DRN. Khirurg ( talk) 05:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:EOKA#Death toll discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So sorry, I thought they were invited as their usernames appear above. I 'll do it now. Cinadon 36 18:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Khirurg and Dr.K. for your arguments. Here is my response.

• Why is it important to talk about fatalities? Because it is a notable topic. Many scholars and researchers have dug into it. A non-all-inclusive list follows:
  • Heinz A. Richter, mentioned above already, * Richter, Heinz (2011). Ιστορία της Κύπρου, τόμος δεύτερος(1950-1959). Αθήνα: Εστία. he is discussing the subject at pages 977 to 979
  • David French Emeritus Professor of History, UCL (see also a dispute at RS Noticepad [13]) Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959 Oxford University Press, 2015 p=307
  • Prof John Newsinger also mentions the death toll at his book where a chapter is dedicated at EOKA's struggle. We can read at the final paragraph: As it was, the conflict had cost the lives of 104 soldiers and 51 police, 26 British civilians and at least 90 EOKA. Over 200 Greek Cypriot civilians were killed, the majority by EOKA." Newsinger, John (30 April 2016). British Counterinsurgency. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 107. ISBN  978-1-137-31686-8..
  • Makarios Drousiotes, a prominent Greek-Cypriot journalist and researcher, discussing the various aspects of the fatalities here the Britons killed (article in EN) or here- the Greeks killed by EOKA (article in GR)
• Rest of the arguments: " I have looked at other similar articles, e.g. IRA, ETA, PKK, and none have a "death toll". (argument by Khirurg). This sounds like whataboutism to me. I do not know why and I am not familiar with other revolutionary/terrorist (depends on how you look at it) organisations. I believe that when discussing likewise matters, we should focus on what the policy dictates, not on what other articles include. One more argument by Khirurg: " the source he is using is a TRNC attache", apparently Khirurg is talking about David Carter, a source that history profs are also using. I think that if Carter is good enough for French, Richter, Newsinger and others, he is good enough for WP as well. Cinadon 36 10:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - This appears to be a yes/no question, whether to include a Death Toll section. The editors are asked whether a Request for Comments would be useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: it doesn't have to be a separate section. It could be a subsection or a couple of sentences plus a table within an existing section. As for the RfC, I guess it 's ok. Cinadon 36 16:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Question - User:Cinadon36, User:Dr.K., User:Khirurg = Are the editors interested, only two weeks late, in engaging in moderated discussion, or is this a yes-no question? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Yes, I am but I have never participated in such procedure before. I will need some guidance. Thanks for asking. Cinadon 36 16:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Instructions - Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. If you have questions, ask. You will be expected to comply. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Cinadon 36 18:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reply to volunteer question: I think this is a binary choice, "yes or no question". Therefore, further discussion would be pointless. In any case, I have already said what I wanted to say. Thank you for your efforts. Dr. K. 15:04, 17 June 2019 (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.