Revision as of 19:30, 29 August 2016

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 16:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Talk:Nikolai Gogol#Purging_WP:undue

General close. Due to the lack of a response here from one of the editors in this dispute, User:Iryna Harpy, and her comments on the talk page which seem to imply that she does not want to discuss here, this dispute is being closed due to lack of participation. Since formal mediation is also voluntary, it is not likely to be a next step. Editors should continue discussion on the article talk page, and should also consider a Request for Comments, which determines consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead sentence WikiLink (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs)
• Lysimachi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns what term to use - "Han people" or "Han Chinese" when describing "Han Taiwanese". For example, "Han Taiwanese" are Taiwanese people of "Han Chinese" descent. I want the article to at least mention the word "Han Chinese" since multiple reliable sources use it and in English, "Han Chinese" is the WP:COMMONNAME used. Lysimachi, wants no mention of "Han Chinese" in the article saying than "Han Chinese" are different from "Han People". They have consistently scrubbed out any mention of Han Chinese, even going to lengths such as using Han people which actually redirects to Han Chinese. I have cited multiple sources but I'm unable to convince Lysimachi. I can cite the sources and explain my position, once ths discussion proceeds.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussions.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would be good for a third party to actually hear both of us. I personally feel Lysimachi is acting based on the Chinese version of the terms, but this is English Misplaced Pages and we use the common English terms.

Summary of dispute by Lysimachi

Lemongirl942 thinks the term "Han" (people/ethnicity) is the same as "Han Chinese" and has been very keen on adding "Chinese" to the article, which is why Lemongirl942 filed this dispute.

Now let's consider the two possibilities:

1. "Han" = "Han Chinese"

a. This doesn't seem to be true because:

(1). Lemongirl942 hasn't provided any reliable studies proving the two terms are completely interchangeable and have the same meaning in all contexts. Without such evidence, there is no reason to assume that two terms can be the same.

(2). "Han" only refers to the people/ethnicity "Han" (汉; Pinyin: Han), whereas "Han Chinese" can mean Chinese that are Han, as Han Taiwanese refer to Taiwanese that are Han and Hmong Americans refer to Americans that are Hmong.

(3). There are English sources where both "Han" (people/ethnicity) and "Han Chinese" do not refer to the same group of people.

b. Even if the two terms really always have the same meaning, why should we use the second more redundant term? (WP:REDUNDANCY)

2. "Han" are not necessarily "Han Chinese"

The compound "Han Chinese" is a common term, but it is often used in contexts where Han Chinese are distinguished from non-Han Chinese groups (for example), that is when the topic is Chinese people.

Taiwanese may be, in some people's view, Chinese, and Han Taiwanese may be Han Chinese. There are certainly hundreds of thousands of sources saying that Taiwan is Chinese, but citing a source and saying that in the beginning of the WP article on Taiwan is not how WP should work per WP:NPOV. And this is exactly what Lemongirl942 has been trying to do to the article Han Taiwanese. (Note that neutrality is especially important in the lead, where Lemongirl942 has been attempting to add "Chinese". WP:LEAD: "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.")

Any scholars aware of the issue of Taiwanese identity, such as the author of Is Taiwan Chinese?, would clearly distinguish between "Han" and "Chinese" instead of using "Han Chinese" as a synonym of "Han". And it should be stressed that saying Han Taiwanese are "Han", as in the current version of the lead, maintains a neutral point of view on whether Han Taiwanese are Chinese or not, and helps the article to focus on its topic, the Han people of Taiwan.

To summarize, due to redundancy and difference in meaning, describing Han Taiwanese with the disputable label "Chinese" is unnecessary and not neutral per Misplaced Pages policies. Lysimachi (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor of the filing of this request. Waiting for a response from the other editor, since participation here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Michael Greger#Removal of sourced content (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sammy1339 (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Iloveinfo22 (talk · contribs)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs)
• Bluemousered (talk · contribs)
• Ciopenhauer (talk · contribs)
• Ckrystalrose (talk · contribs)
• Brianyoumans (talk · contribs)
• Gruffduff62 (talk · contribs)
• SageRad (talk · contribs)
• Cschepker (talk · contribs)
• Dodger67 (talk · contribs)
• Dialectric (talk · contribs)
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)
• DrChrissy (talk · contribs)
• I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs)
• ThePlatypusofDoom (talk · contribs)
• Viewmont Viking (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Sapeli (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the use of a blog post by Harriet Hall in the article on Michael Greger. The post comes from Science Based Medicine, a "nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group" which applies editorial oversight to submissions from the public, but apparently not to the primary contributors, including Hall. I believe that the use of this source, in context, violates WP:BLPSPS and that the relevant section of WP:RS makes clear that self-published expert sources cannot be used for claims about a person. Other editors feel that the claim is about Greger's work, and that therefore the policy doesn't apply.

Complicating matters, a number of new and IP accounts have repeatedly tried to remove the problematic material for months. Since some of them show up with knowledge of BLP policy, it's clear there is some activism going on. However, I happen to think they are right.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page.

Alexbrn reminds me that there were also noticeboard discussions, which were unproductive in my view. . --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

It seems like a straightforward matter to me - either WP:BLPSPS applies here or I am mistaken and it doesn't.

Summary of dispute by Sammy1339

In response to Robert McClenon's question, this particularly concerns the final sentence of the lede, "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits." I claim that this is a statement about Greger, and therefore the use of a SPS is inappropriate. Others think this is a statement about Greger's work, and therefore BLPSPS does not apply. This also affects the second paragraph of the Career and Advocacy section. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Which other editors do you think belong here? I will add them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

At least those who you have contacted on their talk pages. Personally I'd suggest adding everybody who has added or removed the Hall content recently (within the last 14 days say). Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To remove all such concerns I added everyone who has ever commented on this issue or edited the relevant material. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's necessary to say a little more. I think the use of skeptic sources, such as Hall's is necessary on many articles, where it can be supported by WP:PARITY. I think that editors here are usually right about who is and isn't a quack - but not always. The presumption that Greger is a quack underlies this whole conversation, and the extreme derision and dismissive attitude of most of the editors involved has rendered discussion impossible.

This view of Greger is flatly contradicted by another skeptic blog, which explicitly says of him "the science is sound." Now, he is a vegan activist, openly so, and is opinionated. This blog post also notes that, as well as his avoidance of reporting on studies which say nice things about animal products. But that's not the same as being a crank TV doctor. In fact he is a highly cited researcher and is better credentialed in his subject area than Hall.

Hall is not wrong about the science, but it seems that her post misrepresents Greger by assuming that everything he says is part of an argument that veganism is the optimal diet. In fact, as far as I can tell, Greger never claims that the science supports the idea that veganism is healthier than low-meat diets, which it doesn't. One editor tried to change "veganism" to "a plant based diet" in this article, which was accurate to what Greger actually says, though not to the Hall source.

The Hall post is also polemically anti-vegan, framing Greger's work in the context of the zealotry of vegan activists he has nothing to do with. It cites a thoroughly debunked article by Steven Davis, half of whose citations are devoted to criticizing it and correcting its blatant factual errors. To me, this adds some irony.

None of this should really be necessary to mention, as BLPSPS is straightforward and unequivocal, and should end this dispute. But it explains why invoking BLPSPS here is not just a technicality. There are assuredly many cases of disputes between two respected academics, and we don't use the nasty blog posts they may write about each other. This is not much different from that situation.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

The content being disputed is the following: Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos in which he claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness" and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think".

References

1. Hall HA (February 12, 2013). "Death as a Foodborne Illness Curable by Veganism". Science-based Medicine. Retrieved December 13, 2015.

The OP believes that this content is about Greger. As Alexbrn and I have explained on the Talk page, it is about the claims that Greger made. If the content said "Greger is a quack" the OP would have a point. It doesn't say that. Advocates for Greger have been unhappy with this content for a long time (for example, the page is now locked because a SPA kept deleting this - see Special:Contributions/Iloveinfo22) and it has been discussed to death at various noticeboards and on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Misplaced Pages has a policy for biographical subject matter (WP:BLP) and a policy that covers fringe views (WP:PSCI within WP:NPOV). The latter says we should include an "explanation of how scientists have reacted" to the fringe view. This we do in the Greger article, and so are in line with the relevant policy. Obviously we wouldn't use the same source for biographical details about Greger. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(Procedural note: I am concerned that this filing does not properly list the participants in the dispute. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Summary of dispute by Iloveinfo22

Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog

I've certainly helped form and maintain the consensus, but I'm sure my name wasn't on that huge list of miscreants and vagabonds when I was notified of this request? -Roxy the dog™ bark 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JzG

Not liking consensus does not constitute a dispute requiring resolution. There is no dispute here, only Misplaced Pages's use of reality-based sources (Harriet Hall is a noted authority on quackery and fraudulent medical claims) versus a sincere wish that the world was not as it is. Greger's claims are bullshit, the scientific literature typically does not bother addressing bullshit (the recent paper on chemtrails being a striking exception), so we use scientifically informed commentary from noted authorities to establish what the reality-based community thinks of such claims.

As a point of administrivia, I am not convinced that Bluemousered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ciopenhauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ckrystalrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cschepker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iloveinfo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are separate people. If they are, then the arrival in short order of several limited-purpose "warriors for The Truth™" may indicate offsite solicitation, not uncommon when Misplaced Pages critiques evidentially unsupported but lucrative claims. Guy (Help!) 06:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bluemousered

Summary of dispute by Ciopenhauer

Summary of dispute by Ckrystalrose

Summary of dispute by Brianyoumans

Summary of dispute by Gruffduff62

Summary of dispute by SageRad

Summary of dispute by Cschepker

Summary of dispute by Dodger67

I have no idea why I'm listed here, as far as I can determine I have not edited the article or the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dialectric

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants

I participated in one of the previous discussion, 8 months ago at a noticeboard and not at the article. I believe I already voiced my thoughts about the subject there. I have re-read what I wrote then, and my views have not substantially changed. If an individual makes fringe claims about science in popular media, then popular media skeptics are absolutely appropriate sources to cite in the article. Also, that anyone wishing to allege a skeptical bias on the part of the Misplaced Pages community needs to be able to produce evidence of this before they have any right to expect me, or anyone else to take them seriously. I really have nothing else to add to this discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DrChrissy

Summary of dispute by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

This is ludicrous. Either the claims have been criticized or they haven't (they have). Pedantry of the sort being argued by in the OP is a waste of everyone's time. I recommend closing as tendentious. jps (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ThePlatypusofDoom

Summary of dispute by Viewmont Viking

Summary of dispute by Ronz

Summary of dispute by Sapeli

Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content discussion

•  Volunteer note: I have notified all listed participants, who were not notified by the filing party. The noticeboard discussions are all stale, and the only discussion with substance was at WP:FT/N. It appears that there may be other involved editors not listed in the filing. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I thank AntiCompositeNumber for notifying the other participants. It is still the responsibility of the filing party to list all of the editors including themselves. Also, the filing party is asked to state what the content dispute is as to whether the policy WP:BLPSPS applies, since the purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve article content issues. There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)}}

Talk:Harry Watson, Jr.

Premature. There has not been recent discussion on the article talk page. The editors are asked to resume discussion of any content issues, such as the date of death. If discussion resumes and is inconclusive, this request may be refiled. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ürümqi#Demographics

The dispute is currently being discussed in another noticeboard. DRN does not accept cases while a discussion is underway in other noticeboards. Editors are requested to refile the case should they seek dispute resolution, after the discussion on other noticeboards are closed. Regards—UY Scuti 01:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Misplaced Pages Article Revision (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gordon410 (talk · contribs)
• Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs)
• Urselius (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs)
• Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Freeman's extermination view is a fringe theory because it is not supported by sources and should be edited according to WP:Fringe_theories. Freeman's theory of extermination is a historical theory and should be documented as such. Currently, the theory takes undo precedence to the modern theory of Allen and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#.27Romano-Brittonic.27_peoples.27_fate_in_the_south-east

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I submitted a dispute notice twice, I have submitted a fringe theory notice, and I have attempted to get a third opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ#What_if_my_dispute_has_two_viewpoints_but_multiple_editors.3F.

How do you think we can help?

Edit Freeman's theory of extermination to one sentence. Reword the lead to suggest the debate is over. Or we can put Freeman's theory into a historical section because, as TFD states, "the theory remains important because of its historical significance."

Summary of dispute by Florian Blaschke

I completely agree that Freeman's view is now considered fringe and far too extreme, as the evidence from historical, linguistic, genetic and archaeological sources all indicates more survival of the pre-Germanic culture and people than he was ready to admit, despite uncertainty about details. The History of the Norman Conquest of England#Themes points out how ideologically biased he was, personally invested in a belief in the "purely Teutonic nature of the English nation", which made him overlook that his view wasn't even internally consistent! Maybe this political context should be pointed out. Undue weight should certainly be avoided, which means the "extermination hypothesis" should be presented as obsolete, not as a still-current alternative hypothesis. Currently, the article does indeed present Freeman too positively. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that Urselius fails to appreciate that the relevance of the linguistic argument that points to a dearth of Celtic loanwords in English has been repeatedly been challenged in recent years. First, it is argued (e. g., in The Celtic Roots of English) that the number of loanwords is not as low as was thought in the 19th century (where it was thought there were almost none); second, it is pointed out (by Schrijver especially) that the Britons might have already been Latinised at the time (at least in the southeast), helping explain why there are not more loanwords; and third, loanwords may not even be expected in a language-shift scenario – there are analogous cases where we know that there was a shift, but there are few if any loanwords (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Instead, we more frequently find structural influence, especially in the grammar; a particularly striking parallel is the substantive verb. See Brittonicisms in English for more detail. 19th-century scholars tended to know very little about Celtic, especially considering that Celtology was in its infancy at the time in general. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Urselius

As is explained in the article, the Extermination/displacement hypothesis is still referred to in modern (ie now, contemporary, happening at this point in time) reviews of the subject. It remains relevant because modern scholars are still referring to it, it is the starting point of their arguments. These arguments are in agreement or opposition to it to varying degrees, but it remains the fons et origo of all theories about English ethnogenesis.

How did this viewpoint arise? The major starting point was the English language; it contains, and has only ever contained, perhaps a dozen words from the language of the native Britons - the most prominent word being "basket". What was the most obvious, and remains the most obvious, reason for this undisputed fact? The most obvious reason would be that the Anglo-Saxons rarely spoke to the natives, and that the modern English owe almost none of their ancestry to the Britons. Again the most straightforward explanation for this is if the Anglo-Saxons crossed the North Sea in huge numbers, and, once in Britain, drove out any Britons they did not kill. Fortuitously, there is a definite recorded immigration of Britons into the parts of NW Gaul that became Brittany, which occurred at the right time for them to have been displaced from Britain by the incoming Anglo-Saxons.

The article as it stands is far, far more supportive of the acculturation theory than the mass-migration and extermination theories, whilst maintaining a degree of impartiality. In direct contradiction to what has been said previously in this resolution debate the extermination theory has a very low-profile in the article. Also, again in contradiction to a comment below, the results of DNA studies are far from reaching any consensus in resolving English ethnogenesis (to be brief, the English have been ascribed anywhere between <20% to 100% continental "Anglo-Saxon" ancestry). I am a geneticist, and know some of the people doing this work, and can prove my point quite easily by referring to half a dozen papers with widely divergent results (indeed some are referred to in the article already).

Do I believe the extermination scenario to be accurate, do I support it? No I do not! I consider the acculturation theory to be much more plausible. So why am I defending the inclusion, integrated within the text, of this theory? I refer to my arguments above. It is still referred to regularly in modern scholarship.

The people wanting to stick the theory in a "bin" labelled "fringe and historical" need to prove that it is no longer found in current scholarship. They cannot do this as there are countless books and articles written since 1990, since 2000, since 2010 that refer to it. Their arguments are pointless in the face of this fact. Urselius (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TFD

At one time there was a belief in ethnically homogeneous peoples sharing the same ancestry and language. According to that theory, the British Isles were Celtic but the population of what is today England was replaced by Teutons. Current scholarship, partly aided by DNA research, rejects that view, but the theory remains important because of its historical significance. Another issue is the use of the term "genocide." Genocide is a modern concept and it is anachronistic to apply it to pre-modern mass killings. The modern concept of race had not been developed. TFD (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Collect

The sad truth is that modern DNA studies offer actual evidence and not surmise on the topic, and theories which are in conflict with the latest such studies do, alas, are now "fringe." This article ought not present theories which conflict with DNA results as still being mainstream any more. Collect (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

Entirely agree with Urselius. Freeman is mentioned precisely twice, in the same para: "One theory, first set out by Edward Augustus Freeman, suggests that the Anglo Saxons and the Britons were competing cultures ..." and "However, Freeman's ideas did not go unchallenged, even as they were being propounded." This is entirely appropriate. Anyone who thinks all notion of "competing cultures" is now "fringe" has simply not been reading the literature; unfortunately I believe this applies to some of the editors here. There have been a number of studies (mostly on pretty tiny numbers of samples by normal medical or scientific standards) of DNA & isotope analysis, which have as always produced results that appear a good deal less than completely consistent. Anyone who thinks these have now settled the matter (as Collect does) is completely wrong. One day they will no doubt contribute to a more settled understanding, but a lot more data is needed; it is very early days for this branch of research. The whole subject is complex and controversial, with academic debate very much continuing, and we are lucky to have User:J Beake and Urselius, who respectively largely wrote the current form of the article and have maintained it against a string of inexpert assaults, of which that by User:Gordon410 is the latest and much the most persistent. He began back in April, starting the talk page section "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain - What Really Happened" with "I believe that the debate about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is over. The following account is difficult to disagree with: . Since then he has peppered the talk page with alternating demands and questions, rubbishing all sources produced that do not support him, and showing no capacity for following complex academic debates. The current form of the article is balanced, and certainly does not support an "extermination" hypothesis, which is given one para in a very long article. Reading the fairly short Chapter 6 of The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology of 2011 on "the molecular evidence" should dispel any impression that the matter is settled - and by the way the author cheerfully says that "many feasible scenarios can be constructed, with analogues of genoicide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement, social demoralization..." (p. 88 - thanks to User:Doug Weller for the link). If the article has a fault it is relying too much on primary research sources, and crappy short journalistic pieces on them, rather than "review"-type academic sources. Something of a WP:MEDRS approach would be useful here. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Odysseus1479

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for comments by other editors, since discussion here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards