Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Roald Dahl | In Progress | Yossisynett (t) | 7 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours |
Picts | In Progress | LightProof1995 (t) | 6 days, 19 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 hours | LightProof1995 (t) | 3 hours |
Ahsoka (TV series) | Closed | UnkreativeFrog (t) | 6 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 21 hours |
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 19:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Current disputes
Roald Dahl
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Roald Dahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Yossisynett (talk · contribs)
- ND81 (talk · contribs)
Pngeditor (talk · contribs)- Reflecktor (talk · contribs)
- Shoelaces1 (talk · contribs)
- Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
- TylerBurden (talk · contribs)
- BippyTheGuy (talk · contribs)
- Kashmiri (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a dispute regarding the title of the section that describes anti-Israel and antisemitic comments made by Dahl: Roald_Dahl#Anti-Israeli_comments. The dispute does not appear to be about the content but rather than the title, currently "Anti-Israel comments".
It seems to me and ND81 (talk · contribs) that the title should reflect the section content, which includes both anti-Israel and antisemitic comments. Pngeditor (talk · contribs) seems to be requesting that additional proof be provided for why the comments are antisemitic. This seems strange and a little disingenuous considering the comments include:
- The United States, he said, was "so utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions" that "they dare not defy" Israelis.
- "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."
- "I'm certainly anti-Israeli and I've become antisemitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism... There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that's why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel."
I'm not attempting to argue that Dahl was antisemitic. It's possible that, as Isiah Berlin suggest, it was just whimsy. I'm also not taking issue with the content. But I feel the title of the section should reflect the content, for instance, something like "Anti-Israel and antisemitic comments"
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A discussion has taken place at Talk:Roald_Dahl#Anti-semitic_and_anti-Israeli?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I'm hoping that neutral third parties may see that the current section title doesn't reflect the content of the section.
Summary of dispute by ND81
Summary of dispute by Pngeditor
Roald Dahl discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor is asked to please notify ND81 on their user talk page. (I will remove Pngeditor from this case because they have been blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked editor.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment from filing editor - Thank you, have notified ND81 on their user talk page. Yossisynett (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment from a volunteer - I read the entire paragraph and I feel "Anti-Israeli comments" is fine. The heading as it currently stands is concise and I feel "anti-Israeli" already covers both anti-Israel-the-state and anti-Israeli-people. To add "and anti-semitic" to the header feels redundant to me. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment from filing editor - It feels a little redundant to say this but there is a difference between Israelis and Jewish people or the Jewish faith. The section includes comments from Dahl such as "There's a trait in the Jewish character... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason", The United States was "dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions", "There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they [Jews] control the media". These comments are about Jewish people, and they are classic antisemitic tropes. Whether or not these comments by Dahl were motivated by Dahl's feelings about Israel, they are antisemitic so I would argue that adding "and antisemitic" to the header is far from redundant. Yossisynett (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought you the filer were the one wanting to leave it as it is, lol.
- Anyway, your comment here to me is more than enough to show that adding “and anti-Semitic” to the header is reasonable bc you show here “Israeli” does not always mean “Jewish” and you show here he specifically said anti-Jewish comments (as well as his anti-Israel comments). LightProof1995 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment from filing editor - It feels a little redundant to say this but there is a difference between Israelis and Jewish people or the Jewish faith. The section includes comments from Dahl such as "There's a trait in the Jewish character... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason", The United States was "dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions", "There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they [Jews] control the media". These comments are about Jewish people, and they are classic antisemitic tropes. Whether or not these comments by Dahl were motivated by Dahl's feelings about Israel, they are antisemitic so I would argue that adding "and antisemitic" to the header is far from redundant. Yossisynett (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment from filing editor - Added a number of users who have been involved in changing this section title back and forth over the last month to give them the chance to have their say. Yossisynett (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging. I'm hesitant to accuse the subject of antisemitism in Wikipedia voice – this is a significant charge that should always be attributed IMO. Besides, I don't really get it: complaining that, say, chocolate industry is dominated by the Swiss is not considered anti-Swiss; complaining that the diamond industry is dominated by the Belgians is not usually labelled anti-Belgian; or that Indian restaurant industry in the UK is dominated by the Bangladeshis is not considered anti-Bangladeshi. However, complaining (unfairly, I agree) that the publishing industry is dominated by people of Jewish origin suddenly makes one an antisemite and this is expected to go into an encyclopaedia.
- We as encyclopaedia editors also need to remember of WP:COMMONSENSE and not just blindly copy and paste what others have written. As I often say, a good encyclopaedia is not a collection of press clippings. — kashmīrī TALK 11:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding accusing the subject of antisemitism, we can't know what was in Dahl's heart. There is a difference between saying Dahl was antisemitic and that he made antisemitic comments. There can surely be no argument that saying that "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." is antisemitic speech. I don't propose that we call this section "Dahl was an antisemite", I think it should be called "Anti-Israeli and Antisemitic comments" because that accurately describes the content of the section.
- Regarding your assertion that saying that the publishing industry or financial institutions are dominated or controlled by Jews is no different that saying the chocolate industry is dominated by the Swiss. Perhaps you are unaware that those specific claims about Jews echo anti-Jewish and antisemitic conspiracy theories that have been used to perpetrate pogroms, massacres and genocide of Jews since at least the medieval period. Notable examples are The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hitler's Mein Kampf. I don't believe that anyone has ever sought to wipe out the Swiss on the basis that they have too much influence over chocolate. Yossisynett (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- To compare Dahl to Hitler goes because both used negative stereotypes a bit too far for me. Argumentum ad Hitlerum usually ends any meaningful discussion. FYI, Nazis also tried to exterminate other minorities; yet, those who negatively stereotype the Romani people or the homosexuals don't usually get called Nazis.
- My view is that isolated off-the-cuff remarks are too trivial to be included in an encyclopaedia. Making fun at, or being annoyed with, what are popularly considered national/ethnic traits ("Oh, those Germans...", "Eh, typically French...") is fairly common in the society and is below what I'd consider an encyclopaedic element of a biography. — kashmīrī TALK 07:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Roald Dahl)
I will try to conduct moderated discussion concerning this dispute. Please read the usual rules and state whether you agree to them. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. With eight good-standing editors listed in this case, back-and-forth discussion will not be allowed. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and the community.
It appears that one issue, possibly the main issue, is whether a heading should refer to anti-semitic comments or to anti-Israeli comments. Are there any other issues? In particular, are there any issues concerning the text of the article?
Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the main issue, or what they think are the main issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Roald Dahl)
Statement by Yossisynett (filing editor)
Thank you User:Robert McClenon for agreeing to moderate this dispute. I have read and agree to the rules. I don't have any issues with the text of the article or the section in question. My issue is with the title of the section. The section clearly deals with both Anti-Israeli and antisemitic comments by Dahl and current title "Anti-Israeli comments" does not reflect that. I won't respond any further on the above back and forth but I would to clarify to you that I was not comparing Dahl to Hitler above, suggesting so seems to be an attempt to straw man my argument, which was that complaining that the Swiss have undue influence over the chocolate industry is a poor comparison with complaining about Jews controlling the media and financial institutions since the latter has been part of antisemitic discourse and been used to justify violence against and genocide of Jews for centuries. Yossisynett (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Dahl)
It appears that none of the editors except for the filing party have responded. I will be closing this dispute in 24 to 48 hours if no one else wants to engage in moderated discussion. No one has disagreed with the filing editor, who wants to relabel the subsection from Anti-Israeli Comments to Anti-Israeli and Anti-Semitic Comments. I would advise the filing editor to make that change. If the change is reverted, the next step is to discuss on the article talk page, and a step after that is to submit a Request for Comments on the title of the subsection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Dahl)
Picts
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- LightProof1995 (talk · contribs)
- Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs)
- Ceoil (talk · contribs)
- Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Mutt Lunker had me blocked instead of trying to discuss my additions to the Picts page. I was accused of vandalism when my edits were sourced and attributed. I was originally told by Mutt perhaps I should've used my sandbox, which I'd never used before, but when I realized that and apologized right away, it did not matter and he continued to discuss my "behavior" on the talk page instead of the content itself. I sure am sorry if this isn't the place for this. I tried to keep the discussion at Talk:Picts about the content but they kept harassing me about how I edited the article too much at one time. Maybe all that belongs somewhere else, but I wouldn't know where. Anyway, to focus on the content: The information I added was about how the Romans, like Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder, stated Celtic Britons would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad". The etymology of the word "Picts" means "painting", and the article didn't mention painting at all before I came along. Other editors tried to argue this wouldn't apply to the Picts, but this simply isn't true -- you can see my arguments on the talk page where I clearly describe how the words the Romans used could apply to the Picts just as much as the Celtic Britons in southern Britain, but it did not matter, they had me blocked and then asked me if my sources ever specifically said "Picts", which guess what? They did. I added a source by the Roman poet Claudian where he clearly states the Picts were tattooed, which my edits were also about. I think the current state of the article, where it suggests the Picts weren't tattooed at all in the Society section and the entire article doesn't even mention painting, is completely unacceptable. The version Mutt undid three days ago I thought was the best; check out my sandbox for a longer, more-detailed version.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Picts#Good_faith_revert User_talk:Mutt_Lunker#Picts User_talk:LightProof1995#February_2023
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
By actually focusing on the content instead of my "behavior". LightProof1995 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Mutt Lunker
Per Talk:Picts#Good_faith_revert, your sources regarding woad give no indication that they relate specifically to the Picts, the topic of the article. The conjecture that they do is WP:OR, so has no place here. The article already covered the topic of tattooing and the Picts. As far as I can see, the source you use to support your assertion that "The pigments for these tattoos and paints could have been derived from woad" relates to Britons, actively casts doubt that woad was used by them and refers to neither Picts nor tattooing.
Though the dispute is demonstrably in regard to content, if you war, your behaviour is hardly going to escape attention. WP:BRD is not BRRD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- WP:BRD is completely optional, and Britons includes Picts :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, optional but your active disdain for it will be noted. No, conventionally it does not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain.[1] Do you have a source that says otherwise? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- You cited James Fraser's chapter in Pictish Progress below... have you actually read what he says? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- That citation already exists in the article. In this text it is only citing the phrase “Pictish practice of tattooing.” LightProof1995 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- You cited James Fraser's chapter in Pictish Progress below... have you actually read what he says? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain.[1] Do you have a source that says otherwise? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, optional but your active disdain for it will be noted. No, conventionally it does not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ceoil
As outlined by Catfish Jim below, this is an exhausting attempt to bludgeon SYNTH into the article. I took the article of my watchlist a few weeks back in dismay, and hadn't realised until now that LightProof had been since blocked for their behavior on the article. I don't plan on re-watching anytime soon, although the topic is closely within my usual editing area. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment :) I’ve adjusted my original overview to say it was actually only Mutt who performed the block. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Picts discussion
This is beyond the point of disruptive behaviour. LightProof1995 is bludgeoning his original research, attempting to synthesise a narrative that does not exist in academic circles. I have been observing this dispute from the sidelines for some time while not having the time to be directly involved in the discussion. I am involved through my interest in the subject and my history of editing the article so I will recuse myself from any admin actions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, welcome. It's not WP:OR if it is sourced. My sources are academic. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're falling foul of WP:SYNTH. You can only use sources to back up conclusions that are explicitly made by the original authors. Statements made by Julius Caesar about Britons are not relevant, nor are those made by Pliny the Elder. Both are anachronistic to the subject at hand, having been made centuries before the period assigned as "Pictish". The reference to Claudian is interesting, but is a red herring. "Pict" originally was a pejorative, generalised term used by Romans to describe unromanised peoples. Claudian is clearly talking about Scots, who were distinct from the people who later adopted the ethnonym of "Picts". Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Picts and Scots are two different identities. The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain. Seeing as Claudian was a Roman, I don't see how one could say he "actually" was talking about "Scots" instead of Picts.
- Okay, I didn't realize the term "Picts" came about after the time of Caesar and Pliny. I don't think it is anachronistic regardless, as the term "Picts" was applied to the Celtic Britons the Romans could not conquer in the North, and all I stated was:
- Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported in the first centuries B.C.-A.D. that the Celtic peoples of the British Isles would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad", but originally may have meant "glass" and "green" (vitrum and glastum, respectively).[2][3] Woad; a plant that produces indigo dye when its leaves are crushed, soaked in water, fermented, and mixed with a strong base; is native to Europe, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean;[4] and has been used as a source of dye since ancient times.[5] Tattooing has been known across indigenous cultures worldwide, including Europe as seen in the Ötzi bog body discovered in the Alps, home of the Proto-Celtic Hallstatt culture.[6] Therefore, the references to the Celtic British warriors encountered by the Romans are generally understood to be a reference either to the Pictish practice of tattooing;[7] or to painting themselves blue and green. The pigments for these tattoos and paints could have been derived from woad and other plants, or from copper and iron pigments such as basic copper carbonate.[2]
- The Van Der Veen source clearly states: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad."" So it's not something I just made up or "synthesized." I didn't say Caesar and Pliny said "Picts", I said "Celtic peoples", but I feel this relates to the Picts as they were the Celtic Britons in the North the Romans could not conquer. You can argue because the actual term came about a couple of centuries after Caesar and Pliny it's irrelevant, but I don't think that is true because the reason for this addition was to help explain the etymology of "Picts", and "Picti" means "to paint" or "painted". It is akin to providing background information about the etymology of any subject.
- Also, even Britannica says in its short entry on the Picts that the etymology of the word may "refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." LightProof1995 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras
- Claudian is definitely talking about the Scots. Julius Caesar's experience of Britain was limited to Kent and the lower Thames valley. But this is all tangential... what matters here is that there is consensus to not include the edits you made. Wikipedia is built on consensus and sometimes it goes against you, particularly when dealing with topics you have little expertise in. My advice would be to go and edit something else. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, it looks like Scotto means Scots, but he also says Picto which means Picts, you even wrote it. Obviously I’m here to build the consensus to include my edits. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Pict" at that point did not specifically relate to the people that later identified as Pictish. It was essentially a racial slur that the Romans appeared to use for any non-romanised people in the British isles. You are not going to get consensus to include your edits because they are not appropriate or correct. I hope you understand and accept this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree and see no reason to close this DRN until the Picts article mentions that the etymology of Picts may have come from accounts from the Romans of Celtic Britons painting themselves in “woad” and the Society section uses my Claudian’s source to make it neutral about they could have had tattoos or not instead of saying they flat out had no tattoos, which is not neutral. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Pict" at that point did not specifically relate to the people that later identified as Pictish. It was essentially a racial slur that the Romans appeared to use for any non-romanised people in the British isles. You are not going to get consensus to include your edits because they are not appropriate or correct. I hope you understand and accept this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, it looks like Scotto means Scots, but he also says Picto which means Picts, you even wrote it. Obviously I’m here to build the consensus to include my edits. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're falling foul of WP:SYNTH. You can only use sources to back up conclusions that are explicitly made by the original authors. Statements made by Julius Caesar about Britons are not relevant, nor are those made by Pliny the Elder. Both are anachronistic to the subject at hand, having been made centuries before the period assigned as "Pictish". The reference to Claudian is interesting, but is a red herring. "Pict" originally was a pejorative, generalised term used by Romans to describe unromanised peoples. Claudian is clearly talking about Scots, who were distinct from the people who later adopted the ethnonym of "Picts". Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Picts)
I will try to mediate or moderate this dispute if the editors agree that they want moderated dispute resolution. Please read the usual rules. If you are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please say that you have read the rules and will follow them. In particular, please stop the back-and-forth discussion, which has just gone back and forth. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.
It appears that there is an issue about synthesis, the combining of the ideas of two reliable sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by either of the sources. The combining of the ideas of two sources is considered original research in a subtle way, but is still original research. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they think is the main issue with this article. You may use multiple paragraphs if you identify multiple issues, but be concise.
If the only issue is synthesis or other original research, the issue will likely be better decided at the original research noticeboard, but I am willing to try to moderate this dispute, at least to determine what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Picts)
Thanks Robert :) I've now read the rules you linked. Here is my paragraph: The woad article currently states that the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves.[8] The Picts article only mentioned that the etymology of "Picts" is that it means "painted" in Latin, but then says nothing about how the Picts possibly painted themselves. So, I included edits saying that Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported that the Celtic Britons would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad", but originally may have meant "glass" and "green", respectively.[2][3] Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing."[9] There seems to be confusion as to whether the Picts are Britons and if the comments by Caesar and Pliny can apply to them. From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain,[10] which matches what the woad article currently says. Furthermore, I added an additional source by the Roman poet Claudian where he says the Picts were tattooed[11] and that was reverted as well, even though there was already consensus elsewhere in the article that the Picts tattooed themselves. WP:OR only occurs if the editor didn't provide reliable sources that clearly state what the editor themselves are stating, but I provide multiple sources that say exactly what I say. Word for word, here are what my reliable and academic sources state: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad.""; "There is a plant in Gaul, similar to the plantago in appearance, and known there by the name of glastum: with it both married women and girls among the people of Britain are in vile habit of staining the body all over, when taking part in the performance of certain sacred rites"; "the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts.". I see no reason why Wikipedia's woad article and Britannica's Picts article can state painting as the most likely etymology for the word Picts and cite Caesar, but not Wikipedia's Picts article itself!! Edit: Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me:[12] "Prior to the sixth century, the Pictish system seems not to have existed. However the very name "Picts" (from the Latin Picti) almost certainly means the "painted people." The original name for the inhabitants of Britain as a whole, the Prettani, may originally have meant the "people of the designs/symbols." Looking at both names in conjunction, it may well be that the pre-Roman Britons and the post-Roman Picts were both particularly associated with symbolic motifs long before the Picts developed their script. It is conceivable that the sculpted characters derived from earlier motifs used for body painting." I hope that helps :) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to commend LightProof1995 for their tenacity. I would however urge them to not confuse strength of feeling with evidence, and to become more acquainted with Wikipedia policy on referencing. There is a tendency for new editors in this and related subjects to get hung up on what is said in primary sources without cross-referencing with academically accepted secondary sources, relevant policy is found in WP:PRIMARY. Accepted secondary sources in these regards would be textbooks that can be found in university course reading lists for History modules dealing specifically with the mediaeval history of Northern Britain. A reasonably full list would include:
- Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, vol. 1, ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1
- Woolf, Alex (2007), "From Pictland to Alba 789 - 1070", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press, vol. 2
- Markus, Gilbert (2017), "Conceiving a Nation: Scotland to AD 900", The New History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
- Smyth, Alfred P. (1984), Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD 80–1000, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-0100-4 (Getting quite old now, really superseded by Fraser, Woolf and Markus)
- Clarkson, Tim (2016), The Picts: A History (New Edition), Edinburgh: Birlinn, ISBN 978-1780274034 (an excellent introduction to the subject, easier to read than Woolf or Fraser)
- Noble, Gordon; Evans, Nicholas (2019), The King in the North: The Pictish Realms of Fortriu and Ce, Edinburgh: Birlinn, ISBN 978-1780275512
- Wainwright, F.T. (1955), The Problem of the Picts, Edinburgh: Nelson (the first real academic treatment of the Picts, some concepts are now dated)
- Driscoll, Stephen T.; Geddes, Jane; Hall, Mark A. (2010), Pictish Progress: New Studies on Northern Britain in the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, ISBN 978-90-04-18759-7 (outlines developments in understanding since The Problem of the Picts was published)
In relation to specific points, tattooing is already discussed in the article in as much depth as it is given in secondary sources, which always relate to etymology. One of the main objections to expanding discussion beyond this is the complexity of the ethnogenesis of the Picts. While we have records of "Pict" as a Latin pejorative exonym (a racial slur if you like) in the 3rd century CE, its adoption as an ethnonym and endonym is much later, as late as the 7th century CE. There is no evidence for cultural unity before this. In terms of including tattooing in the society section of the article, there is no strong evidence that tattooing was a custom that the ethnic group that called themselves "Picts" actually practiced. Contemporary sources close to the Picts (like Bede) did not mention it. There is an early 7th century reference by Isidore of Seville in his Etymologiae to Pictish nobility having tattoos, but it is unclear how reliable this is given his heavy reliance on Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) and Gaius Julius Solinus (3rd century CE).
Any temptation to assume a unity of cultural practices in pre-Roman Britain that extends into the Pictish era should be rejected as over-simplistic and misleading. Markus warns against such simplification in the preface to Conceiving a Nation. We know that there were many ethnically distinct kingdoms in Roman times. Julius Caesar's reference to the Britons needs to be framed in the context of his first hand experience of these peoples, which was limited to the Cantiaci and Cenimagni. He states that merchants involved in cross-channel trade were unable or unwilling to supply him with any information about the people. His gains in the second invasion of 54 BCE did not extend to within 350 miles of the area later known as Pictland. We cannot take statements made by him as relating to the peoples of Northern Scotland. We also know that the Romans did not view the people of Northern Scotland as a politically or culturally unified people. Ptolemy in his Geography records 14 distinct tribes living in the area that later became Pictland. Fraser is explicit on this: "Whatever we make of the appearance of Picti in our sources in late Antiquity, then, we may feel assured that the term does not refer to a single political community or ethnic solidarity. There is no convincing evidence that it did so much before 700."
I have reviewed the literature regarding Claudian and will include it in the article, referenced to a secondary source. I find no compelling reason to include Julius Caesar or Pliny the Elder in the article. It would be an anachronism. Worse still is the suggestion that we should mention Ötzi, who lived 4,000 years before the ethnogenesis of the Picts and 900 miles from their border. While tattooing is mentioned in secondary sources in relation to the etymological origin of the word "Pict" (and not as the sole possibility), no mention of how it might have been done is covered in any serious source. We simply do not have any evidence of it at all. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ravilious, Kate. Land of the Picts. 2021
- ^ a b c Van Der Veen, M.; Hall, A. R.; May, J. (1993-11-01). "Woad and the Britons Painted Blue". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 12 (3): 367–371. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.1993.tb00340.x. ISSN 1468-0092.
- ^ a b Pliny the Elder, The Natural History. Volume 4. BOOK XXII. Chapter 2. 78-79 A.D. "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61113/61113-h/61113-h.htm""https://exploringcelticciv.web.unc.edu/pliny-the-elder-the-natural-history"
- ^ https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.28902
- ^ https://www.wearingwoad.com/the-woad-to-a-sustainable-blue-an-overview-of-woad-history/
- ^ Brenda Fowler (2001). Iceman: Uncovering the Life and Times of a Prehistoric Man Found in an Alpine Glacier. University of Chicago Press. p. 37 ff. ISBN 978-0-226-25823-2.
- ^ Fraser 2011, pp. 25–27
- ^ Carr, Gillian (2005-08-01). "Woad, Tattooing and Identity in Later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 24 (3): 277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2005.00236.x. ISSN 1468-0092.
- ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pict
- ^ Ravilious, Kate. Land of the Picts. 2021
- ^ Claudian, The Gothic War. 402-403 A.D. "http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Claudian/De_Bello_Gothico*.html" "...the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts." Note Getae in this text refers to the Visigoths.
- ^ Keys, David. Rethinking the Picts. 2004
First statement by moderator (Picts)
The zeroth statements by two editors are too long to be useful, except to illustrate lengthy disagreement. Please read the rules again, including the rule to be civil and concise. @LightProof1995, Catfish Jim and the soapdish, Ceoil, and Mutt Lunker: – Are you interested in moderated discussion? If only one editor is interested in moderated discussion, I will close this case with a recommendation to take any remaining dispute to the original research noticeboard. If you want to engage in moderated discussion, please make a one-paragraph statement about what you think the issue is or issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Picts)
Thank you for your efforts @Robert McClenon: I suggest this discussion is indeed closed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is not closed -- I read the rules and condensed my statement to a single paragraph, of 508 words above (the banner says 1000 words or less). Please don't close this dispute. I've condensed my paragraph to 359 words below. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
My paragraph: Our woad article states the Romans called the northern inhabitants of Britain "Picts" because they painted their bodies and tattooed themselves.[1] The Picts article mentions the etymology of "Picts" means "painted" in Latin, but says nothing about how the Picts painted themselves. My edits said Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported the Celtic Britons painted themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad".[2][3] Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing."[4] There is confusion as to whether the Picts are Britons and if the comments by Caesar and Pliny can apply to them. The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain,[5] which matches what the woad article says. I also added an additional source by the Roman poet Claudian where he says the Picts were tattooed[6] and that was reverted as well, even though the current consensus is the Picts tattooed themselves. WP:OR only occurs if the editor didn't provide reliable sources that state what the editor states, but I provide multiple sources that say what I say. Here are what my reliable and academic sources state: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad.""; "with glastum (woad), the people of Britain are in vile habit of staining the body all over."; "the legion... scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts.". I see no reason why Wikipedia's woad article and Britannica's Picts article can state painting as the most likely etymology for the word Picts and cite Caesar, but not Wikipedia's Picts article itself!! Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me:[7] "The very name "Picts" (from the Latin Picti) almost certainly means the "painted people." The original name for the inhabitants of Britain as a whole, the Prettani, may originally have meant the "people of the designs/symbols." It is conceivable that the sculpted characters derived from earlier motifs used for body painting." Also the Fraser source cites Caesar on Page 27. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Ahsoka (TV series)
Closed discussion |
---|
- ^ Carr, Gillian (2005-08-01). "Woad, Tattooing and Identity in Later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 24 (3): 277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2005.00236.x. ISSN 1468-0092.
- ^ Van Der Veen, M.; Hall, A. R.; May, J. (1993-11-01). "Woad and the Britons Painted Blue". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 12 (3): 367–371. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.1993.tb00340.x. ISSN 1468-0092.
- ^ Pliny the Elder, The Natural History. Volume 4. BOOK XXII. Chapter 2. 78-79 A.D. "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61113/61113-h/61113-h.htm""https://exploringcelticciv.web.unc.edu/pliny-the-elder-the-natural-history"
- ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pict
- ^ Ravilious, Kate. Land of the Picts. 2021
- ^ Claudian, The Gothic War. 402-403 A.D. "http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Claudian/De_Bello_Gothico*.html" "...the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts." Note Getae in this text refers to the Visigoths.
- ^ Keys, David. Rethinking the Picts. 2004