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

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

• Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

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

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

• Picts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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. 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)

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). 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; and has been used as a source of dye since ancient times. 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. 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; 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.

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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. 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. Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." 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, 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's Picts article itself!! Edit: Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me: "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 Misplaced Pages 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, vol. 1, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1
• Woolf, Alex (2007), "From Pictland to Alba 789 - 1070", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 2, Edinburgh University Press
• 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

1. Ravilious, Kate. Land of the Picts. 2021
2. ^ 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.
3. ^ 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"
4. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.28902
5. https://www.wearingwoad.com/the-woad-to-a-sustainable-blue-an-overview-of-woad-history/
6. 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.
7. Fraser 2011, pp. 25–27 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFraser2011 (help)
8. 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.
9. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pict
10. Ravilious, Kate. Land of the Picts. 2021
11. 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.
12. 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. 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". Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." 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, 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's Picts article itself!! Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me: "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)

Thanks Robert. I'd be happy to see this closed as no resolution can be reached when the root is the failure, or refusal to, understand the nature of SYNTH and OR, evident since before the matter was brought here. The filer lays out expansively the nature of their textbook violation of these policies, then baldly states that they have not. No resolution can be reached, without the denial of the policies. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Picts)

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.

Second statements by editors (Picts)

Thanks Robert :) By leaving this open, I was hoping all of us would just talk about the content. Instead, Mutt has attacked my intelligence and insists I don't understand WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Catfish made a valiant effort to talk about the content, although I still disagree with what they said in regards to the content. Mutt had me blocked and accused me of WP:VANDALISM. Mutt then insulted the admin that blocked me on their talk page, twice. I just want to add my clearly non-OR edits to the Picts page without getting blocked. Before we switch to the OR noticeboard, do you have any comments about the content? As an outside opinion of someone who hasn't edited the Picts page? It truly feels like all three editors here just don't want to admit I'm right (although I think Catfish may be starting to agree with me some). At the top it says this is a first stop for disputes; clearly this dispute is more than just the content. Where should I go about that? LightProof1995 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2023 (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.