Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/dacy69
Case Filed On: 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedian filing request:
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
Wikipedia pages this pertains to:
Questions: edit
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
- Answer: yes
How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)
- Answer: Content Dispute and Personal Attack
What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.
What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
- Answer: Appropriate editing (Neutral wording) of section "Ethnic Composition" of page Urartu
Summary: edit
In the current version of page Urartu, part "Ethnic Composition" it says that Urartu and Armenians has coherent links and communality. I propose the insertion of the text, which identifies that some (quite a number) scholars (e.g. I.Diakonov, Encyclopedia Britannica) believe that Armenians moved in the Urartu area in 7-6 BC, and therefore Urartu people and Armenians are different. The different languages of these peoples are discussed in the section "Language". However, "Ethnic composition" in its current version does not imply that. Moreover, Language and Ethnicity is two different things. It should not be mixed up. For identifying the ethnic affilition of any tirbe/people the historians research several aspects: 1) Archeological (material culture) 2) Language (linguistic analysis) 3) Historiogpraphy (ancient and medieval sources) 4) Toponomy (names of settlements). Apparently, Eupator and TigrantheGreat users refer only to one of the aspect - Language. The other aspects researched by scholars like I. Diakonov and those associated with Encyclopedia Britannica summarize that Armenians were different from Urartu people (not only by language) and moved in the area later. I believe it should be clearly indicated in the section of "Ethnic Composition".
Discussion: edit
Followup: edit
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
- Answer: YES
Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
- Answer: YES
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
- Answer: 5
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
- Answer: 5
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
- Answer: 5
If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
- Answer: I don't know
If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
- Answer: I don't know
AMA Information edit
Case Status: closed
Advocate Status:
- I'm looking into this as my first case. I've not yet been accepted. SilkTork 10:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Contact has been made with all editors involved in recent activity on the article. SilkTork 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The heated language / insults used by Eupator in this case is regrettable, but not that unusual or vicious when points of view are disputed by enthusiastic editors. I've drawn Eupator's attention to his choice of language, and Dacy69 is quite happy to drop complaints of Personal Attack. SilkTork 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dacy69 has provided appropriate evidence in support of his edits. I have made a comment on the talk page of Urartu explaining that Dacy69 is making appropriate edits and inviting editors to talk to me if they have concerns. I regard the matter as closed. SilkTork 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)