Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

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 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

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.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution 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 help: 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.			Become a volunteer 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 Wikipedia 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 remember: 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 Wikipedia, 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. Open/close quick reference 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).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	14 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	18 hours	Oolong (t)	1 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	In Progress	Kautilyapundit (t)	13 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Kautilyapundit (t)	17 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	8 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 15 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	In Progress	Abo Yemen (t)	3 days, 16 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 hours	Abo Yemen (t)	2 hours
List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present)	New	203.78.15.149 (t)	5 hours	None	n/a	203.78.15.149 (t)	5 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 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Current disputes

Barlas

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jebenoyon on 23:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Jebenoyon (talk · contribs)
• nawabmalhi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been contributing to the "Barlas" clan page on Wikipedia for years. Recently,an editor named nawabmalhi has added contentious assertions to the page - perhaps because they support the contentious assertions made by the founder of his religion, as evidenced by comments made on his page by other editors on other similar matters. In my case he has added the vague word "Persianized" to the "Turco-Mongol" ethnic heritage of the Barlas, my people, because the founder of his religion claimed to be Barlas and claimed to be "Persianized" which was a highly contentious claim then, and now. It simply is untrue. The editor has used a marginal book on the Persians in support of this assertion, but you can research this and see this is not a credible assertion. This editor has also changed the description of the Barlas empire from "Central Asia" to "Greater Persia." This is like calling present day France a "Roman Province." Additionally, he has threatened me and while essentially vandalizing himself accused me of such. I think his religious sentiments are interfering with his objectivity so I am bringing this here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have sent three messages to this editor. he seems to be used to changing things to suit his religious belief and they seem to have had no effect. other people on this page had protested to him earlier too, and on other pages, but, as always, he is undeterred. I believe he is diluting the accuracy of Wikipedia for his personal motives.

How do you think we can help?

I think you can review the information and it should be pretty easy to see that calling a Turco-Mongol ethnic group, that included Persia in its vast empire, "Persianized" is inaccurate. It is like describing the British as "Indianized." Adding assertions of foreign cultural influence to an ethnically distinct race is not an acceptable or valid practice in any case. As for using "Greater Persia," which may have existed thousands of years earlier, instead of Central Asia, this is self evident.

Summary of dispute by nawabmalhi

• I have never claimed that the Barlas tribe is Iranian but only that they are a tribe of Turco-Mongol origin who lived and ruled in Greater Persia and adopted Persian Culture(ie. Mughal Emperors were famous for their Persian poetry).

• The fact of the matter is that the Barlas tribe is not just found in Central Asia but also in Iran, Afghanistan,Pakistan, and India. Their are more people who claim descent from the Barlas tribe in Pakistan, India, and Iran (individually) than in all of Central Asia. In Central Asia, Iran and South Asia cannot be included.

• All the references currently used in the Barlas article indicate the Barlas as part of the fabric of greater Persia. Even the name of one of the references is "The Persians"! Please see Turko-Persian tradition aswell

• Now Greater Persia is not a concept, its a reality. Greater Persia and Persianized are words used and linked countless articles on Wikipedia.

• Greater Persia is not based of ethnic homogeneity but instead of a cultural and linguistic identity built through various empires Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanians,Abbasids(1000-1300)/Buyyids, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate, Samanids, Timurids Safavids,Mughal Empire and Afsharids and the Qajar Empire who all ruled Greater Persia.

• The bolded mean ethnically turco-mongol dynasty- notice that all had Persian as their official language and used it in their elite circles. Infact some of them try to distance from their Turic Heritage.

• Most of the Barlas tribe did adopt Persian customs, language, religion(Islam), titles and married within the local Persians and later South Asians by mid-14th century. The adoption of native vernaculars by elites in place of Persian started in parts of Central Asia in the 18th century although Persian was used for administrative purposes.

• Infact it was the adoption of Persian Culture which distinguished the Barlas from other Turco-Mongols such as the Golden Horde infact the Turco-Mongol clans of Greater Persia helped Kublai Khan( a moderate) defeat Ariq Böke(radical) who wanted the Mongol power to be in Mongolia and did not like adaption to other cultures that were part of the Mongol Empire

• @Jebenoyon also mentions something about France and Rome but does not work because the Franks never ruled Rome but still used latin script. Plus France and Western Europe claims to be inheritors of western Civilization which started in Greece. A more valid example would be when Roman empire was near collapse the numerous non-italic New Romans who adopted Roman culture and became emperors:
  

Diocletian - Dalmatian Illyrian

Maximian - probably Illyrian or Pannonian

Carausius - Menapian Gaul

Constantius Chlorus - Moesian or Dacian

Galerius - Dacian

Severus II - Danubian

Maxentius - Danubian and Syrian

Constantine I and his sons - Moesian or Dacian list can go on....

• I know this article means alot to @Jebenoyon who is very proud of his Mongol ancestry (I don't think he is a Barlas), but he should set his personal opinion aside instead flaunting allegations and threatening me.

The users I have disagreements(which is normal) I have developed very good working relationships with due to specializing in similar areas.

• Other then @Jebenoyon own statements/beliefs/opinions what facts or links has he provided that justify his view?

--Nawabmalhi (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Barlas discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi. I am Mdann52, and am a volenteer here at DRN, however this does not give me any specific powers. Looking into the history of the article, the dispute appears to center around this type of edit. As the material is sourced, the burden of proof is on Nawabmalhi to show that reliable sources use the term as well. Are you able to show this? --Mdann52talk to me! 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdann52,sorry for late reply ,and yes. The word persianized(derived from Persianization) is used in numerous Wikipedia articles and historians and is not a real debate as far as I know. But I have provided reliable external sources pertaining to Turco-Mongols(timurids,Mughals, Qajars etc.)that use it aswell:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Now Greater Persia/Iran is used to indicate the extent of Persian civilization, culture and empires and is best defined by the geographic boundaries of those various empires.If you go onto the Article on Greater Persia/Iran( In the Introduction) you'll find many clear and concise sources which indicate its existent and use in intellectual circles by historians. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide a source that uses it in this context; A quick skim read of these shows that none of them appear to use the work in the context that is being discussed; Are you able to provide a source using it that can be used to support your dispute arguement (refering to this particularly, not just the general use of the word?). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,Mdann52, Please reread my my summary of dispute, Barlas article and reexamine the sources I gave you:

Source 1: Talks about the Mongols who ruled Persia and how they became persianized Barlas is part of this group which lived and ruled in Persia.

Source 2: This talks of the Timurid(synonymous with Barlas) Babur (also first Mughal emperor) and how a perfect ruler is a persianized and islamicized Turco-Mongol ruler a tribute to the Timurids(Barlas).

Source 3: This talks about the Timurid(Barlas) and how persianized they have become, it also mention how Safavids and Qajars allied with Timurids also were persianized.

Source 4: This is talking of the mongols who ruled and lived greater Persia the Ilkhanate (Barlas again were part of the Ilkhanate) and later resurrected it through the Timurids which angered many Mongols in th Mongol heartland and rebelled(like Jenoboyon).. read summary dispute for more

Source 5: This is again talking about persianized Turks and then mentions 'Timur's persianized Turks' which refers again to the Barlas tribe. (Timur is a patriach of Barlas) it continues to mention Mughals again part of Barlas tribe

Source 6: This talks about Timur(leader of Barlas) and how he is heavily persianized as was his empire.

Source 7: This mentins the Qajars a turco-mongol tribe with relation with Barlas/Timurids and show the came persianized This I guess is invalid because does not mention Barlas or Turco-Mongols in Persia or Timur.

Source 8: This is talking about mongols(mentions specifically Timur)in the Islamic world (look starting near bottom of previous page) and how persianized Turco-Mongol Courts thrived and helped Islam

The fact that the Barlas and othe Turco-Mongols are persianized is a fact and has not been a dispute between historian. Alot of users in the last few years have argued against it. --Hope this helpsNawabmalhi (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jebenoyon: can I have your opinion on these sources please? --Mdann52talk to me! 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 can you also read this from the Timurid dynasty article on Wikipedia which is written by many senior editors and has large number of total editors again persianization is a fact:

The Timurid dynasty (Template:Lang-fa), self-designated Gurkānī (Template:Lang-fa), was a Sunni Muslim Persianate dynasty of Turco-Mongol lineage that ruled over modern-day Iran, the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, much of Central Asia, as well as parts of contemporary Pakistan, Syria, India, Anatolia. The dynasty was founded by Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century.......................

The origin of the Timurid dynasty goes back to the Mongol tribe known as Barlas, who were remnants of the original Mongol army of Genghis Khan. After the Mongol conquest of Central Asia, the Barlas settled in what is today southern Kazakhstan, from Shymkent to Taraz and Almaty, which then came to be known for a time as Moghulistan – "Land of Mongols" in Persian – and intermingled to a considerable degree with the local Turkic and Turkic-speaking population, so that at the time of Timur's reign the Barlas had become thoroughly Turkicized in terms of language and habits

Additionally, by adopting Islam, the Central Asian Turks and Mongols adopted the Persian literary and high culture which had dominated Central Asia since the early days of Islamic influence. Persian literature was instrumental in the assimilation of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 can you finally resolve this please?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 Gentlemen I have reviewed the information. The article on the Timurids talks about the effect of "Persianization" on this Turco-Mongol ethnic group, over time, not as being part of their ethnic makeup from the getgo. The portion of the article we are talking about on the Barlas opens up with a description of their ethnic makeup. To start out the description of their ethnicity by calling them "Persianized" is misleading. May I suggest that they could be described as a Turco-Mongol ethnic group, some of whom were LATER CULTURALLY "Persianized." This seems more accurate to me. On another note, I don't think describing central and south Asia as "Greater Persia" is accurate.Jebenoyon (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2014 Mdann52 please advise. The other editor keeps saying not to use Central Asia because the clan was also located in South Asian countries like Iran, India and Pakistan - so then lets say Central and South Asia which actually exist in the present day and are far more factually accurate and self-evident than "Greater Persia"

@Mdann52 I would like to add that the sources provided all talk about how Persian culture influenced the culture of the Barlas imperial courts - it does not speak to their ethnicity and to all the members of the clan, all of whom were not Kings! There is a distinct difference between ethnicity and culture. To characterize ethnicity on the basis of cultural influence is inappropriate.

References

References

Generally speaking, Persian sources like "Encyclopedia Iranica" seem biased in favor of exaggerating the influence of Persia on everything. Sources glorifying Persia are not objective.

@Mdann52 Specifically, a lot of wrong assumptions are being made by NawabMalhi:

1. Source 1: Talks about the Mongols who ruled Persia and how they became persianized Barlas is part of this group which lived and ruled in Persia.

Comment :The Barlas were not part of the people who ruled Persia, Persia was a small part of what they ruled and did not define all of them nor does it define their ethnic makeup.

2. Source 2: This talks of the Timurid(synonymous with Barlas) Babur (also first Mughal emperor) and how a perfect ruler is a persianized and islamicized Turco-Mongol ruler a tribute to the Timurids(Barlas).

Comment: Timurids were one small branch of the Barlas and are not synonymous with all Barlas. This is a fallacious and illogical assertion. It is also irrelevant and does not speak to the ethnic makeup of the clanwhatsoever.

Source 3: This talks about the Timurid(Barlas) and how persianized they have become, it also mention how Safavids and Qajars allied with Timurids also were persianized.

Comment: Tmiurid are a small part of the Barlas and not synomous with the ethnic makeup of all of them. Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever.

Source 4: This is talking of the mongols who ruled and lived greater Persia the Ilkhanate (Barlas again were part of the Ilkhanate) and later resurrected it through the Timurids which angered many Mongols in th Mongol heartland and rebelled(like Jenoboyon).. read summary dispute for more

Comment :The Barlas were not part of the Ilkhanate, the Ilkhanate was a small part of where they lived and what they ruled. It did not define all of them for all time.

Source 5: This is again talking about persianized Turks and then mentions 'Timur's persianized Turks' which refers again to the Barlas tribe. (Timur is a patriach of Barlas) it continues to mention Mughals again part of Barlas tribe

Comment: Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever

Source 6: This talks about Timur(leader of Barlas) and how he is heavily persianized as was his empire.

Comment: Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever. Timur was one member of the clan at a certain time and does not define the ethnicity of the clan. And being affected by persian culture did not change his Turco-Mongol ethnicity.

Source 7: This mentins the Qajars a turco-mongol tribe with relation with Barlas/Timurids and show the came persianized This I guess is invalid because does not mention Barlas or Turco-Mongols in Persia or Timur.

Comment: Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever

Source 8: This is talking about mongols(mentions specifically Timur)in the Islamic world (look starting near bottom of previous page) and how persianized Turco-Mongol Courts thrived and helped Islam

Comment: Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever

@Mdann52 SOURCES PROVING BARLAS ETHNICITY AS EXCLUSIVELY TURKO-MONGOL:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur

"The Barlas were originally a Mongol tribe[22][23] that became Turkified.[2][3][4]

2. Carter V. Findley, The Turks in World History, Oxford University Press, 2005, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-517726-8, p. 101. 3. G. R. Garthwaite, "The Persians", Malden, ISBN 978-1-55786-860-2, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. (p.148) Quotation:...Timur's tribe, the Barlas, had Mongol origins but had become Turkic-speaking ... However, the Barlus tribe is considered one of the original Mongol tribes and there are "Barlus Ovogton" people who belong to Barlus tribe in modern Mongolia. 4. ^ M.S. Asimov & C. E. Bosworth, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, UNESCO Regional Office, 1998, ISBN 92-3-103467-7, p. 320: "... One of his followers was [...] Timur of the Barlas tribe. This Mongol tribe had settled [...] in the valley of Kashka Darya, intermingling with the Turkish population, adopting their religion (Islam) and gradually giving up its own nomadic ways, like a number of other Mongol tribes in Transoxania ..."

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_dynasty

"The origin of the Timurid dynasty goes back to the Mongol tribe known as Barlas, who were remnants of the original Mongol army of Genghis Khan.[6][7][8] After the Mongol conquest of Central Asia, the Barlas settled in what is today southern Kazakhstan, from Shymkent to Taraz and Almaty, which then came to be known for a time as Moghulistan – "Land of Mongols" in Persian – and intermingled to a considerable degree with the local Turkic and Turkic-speaking population, so that at the time of Timur's reign the Barlas had become thoroughly Turkicized in terms of language and habits.

Additionally, by adopting Islam, the Central Asian Turks and Mongols adopted the Persian literary and high culture[13] which had dominated Central Asia since the early days of Islamic influence. Persian literature was instrumental in the assimilation of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture.[14]"

6.B.F. Manz, "Tīmūr Lang", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006 7. "Timur", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001–05 Columbia University Press, (LINK) 8. "Consolidation & expansion of the Indo-Timurids", in Encyclopædia Britannica, (LINK)

9. David J. Roxburgh. The Persian Album, 1400–1600: From Dispersal to Collection. Yale University Press, 2005. pg 130: "Persian literature, especially poetry, occupied a central in the process of assimilation of Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamicate courtly culture, and so it is not surprising to find Baysanghur commissioned a new edition of Firdawsi's Shanama

The clearly shows that the ethnicity was Turco Mongol and "persinaization" was just a cultural effect.

10. http://books.google.ca/books?id=1Nzh_9DZ5DYC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=barlas+turco+mongol&source=bl&ots=Mu4g7St6FO&sig=lSrHwrb8JbBVXSdudFsEQh01oAw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uYTlU7iuO4PioAShv4HoDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=barlas%20turco%20mongol&f=false

"Several of these groups - the Barlas, Arlat, Jalayir and Suldus - bore the names of Turco-Mongolian tribes known from the time of Chinggis Khan"

11. http://books.google.ca/books?id=lt2tqOpVRKgC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=barlas+turco+mongol&source=bl&ots=O3fV5rMCrX&sig=o_Rv8MxXR2lBj2yAReHo0KqheEg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zYblU-D2KonsoASdzoCgAw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=barlas%20turco%20mongol&f=false

"Temiir, a member of the Turco-Mongol clan of the Barlas"

12.http://books.google.ca/books?id=DW2jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=barlas+turko+mongol&source=bl&ots=ryc-Vh7GZv&sig=BYkxUhX2GknIKYCsuo8aVrLKjCU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=boflU_K-AtXgoAT0hIDQDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=barlas%20turko%20mongol&f=false

"Timur's family belonged to the Gorgan branch of the Turko-Mongol Barlas tribe"

@Mdann52 here are a dozen credible sources that describe the Barlas as exclusively Turco-Mongol so Nawabmalhi has not carried the burden of proof. Taking a cultural influence of one culture out of the multitude of cultures they ruled, at best, describes a partial cultural influence and not ethnicity as is implied by calling them a "Persianized Turco Mongol clan" as this implies Persian ethnicity to a lay person reading it and is misleading.

Conclusion:

A lot of emphasis is being place on Timur, and the wrong assertion is being made that because he was affected by Persian culture, all the Barlas are "Persianized." Explaining a persian cultural influence on some factions of the clan at different times does not change the ethnic makeup of the clan. A lot of the sources are also biased in that a google search was done to support that the Barlas were "persianized" and no effort was made to ascertain their true ethnic heritage, which is what we are talking about. I have provided a dozen credible references describing the Barlas as exclusively Turco_Mongol so the burden of proof has not been met by Nawabmalhi. A cultural influence does not change ethnicity such that the cultural influence is used to describe ethnicity. And instead of Central Asia we can say Central and South Asia - Greater Persia is like calling the British Empire the "Greater Mughal Empire."

@Mdann52 Thank you for your consideration.

Jebenoyon (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed to WP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 their is no synthesis if you look to the Timurids and Mughals (you must use them unless the Barlas article is pure synthesis) because Barlas is an imperial clan as gate way to the the Barlas (please look at sources used in article), and we would also be inconsistent with other articles (Timurid Dynasty) we have on Wikipedia that has and is done by more senior editors. Again I have never said they are not ethnically Turco-Mongol, only that they are a persianized Turco-Mongol group is their even one historian or source which says that the Barlas are not Persianized in contrast to my 7-8 sources are we going to say the Barlas are found in Central Asia while most Barlas are not located in Iran,Pakistan ,and India their actually not and go against all the sources that say their a persianized group(Its purely cultural). Please explain your resolution, which source is not reliable, do you disagree with other articles related to this subject ,and can this be taken to an editor who knows more about this subject.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 As you can see this person now resorts to threats toward you as well, and the assertions he has again made here are not logical whatsoever. This is evident to someone reading this - there is no requirement that you MUST use these "sources" from which he has tried to weave a tapestry that is unsupported by the facts. What does an "Imperial clan as a gateway to the Barlas" mean anyway?????

The Wikipedia article on the Timurid dynasty clearly says that the TIMURIDS were of Turco-Mongol lineage ONLY, just that there was a Persianate influence on THIS PARTICULAR GROUP- (who do not represent ALL BARLAS).

Persianate being defined in Wikipedia as "A Persianate society, or Persified society, is a society that is either based on, or strongly influenced by the Persian language, culture, literature, art, and/or identity." This does not speak to ethnicity, which being "Persianized", regardless of his vehement denials, this person is trying to create the false impression of in the Barlas article.

"The Timurid dynasty (Persian: تیموریان‎), self-designated Gurkānī [3][4][5] (Persian: گوركانى‎), was a Sunni Muslim PERSIANATE (NOT PERSIANIZED)[6][7] dynasty of Turco-Mongol lineage[7][8][9][10] that ruled over modern-day Iran, the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, much of Central Asia, as well as parts of contemporary Pakistan, Syria, India, Anatolia."

This person also does not seem to want to understand or acknowledge that everyone agrees that the dynasty was in CENTRAL AND SOUTH ASIA, falsely saying every time, as if South Asia has never been mentioned, that there are more descendants in South Asia than in Central Asia, ergo lets say "Greater Persia instead of "Central Asia, cleverly omitting that I am OK with saying Central and South Asia, just not with Greater Persia, and have said so several times!" There is no logic to this - I have no problems adding South Asia to Central Asia, which is more accurate, but "Greater Persia" is like calling present day France a Roman province.

As you can see from this person's attitude, he is not concerned here about what is factually accurate, but at ensuring that he forces his contentious views on everyone by any means necessary, such as now questioning you and threatening to take this to someone else etc. etc. Such a person should be banned from Wikipedia for trying to distort facts and creating false impressions to support his personal religious beliefs and repeatedly threatening others and wasting everyone's time!

In summary, he is trying to take small, specific assertions made in certain, specific contexts, and trying to weave a tapestry that doesn't exist out of them. He is intentionally engaging in mischaracterization of other people's positions and then arguing against the mischaracterizations of their opinions that he himself sets up! It is clear his motives are not based on enlightened, intellectual resolutions of the facts but on enforcing his contentious views by any means necessary.

Thank you for your time and for taking the time to address this matter. If he chooses to continue with this, rest assured I will continue as well because it is time that someone stood up to this kind of attempted bullying and distortion.

Jebenoyon (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jebenoyon what threats did I make, what bullying?
I actually do agree with you though that we should just change greater persia to Central Asia, South Asia, and Iran for more accuracy.
But I donnot understand how persianized changes their ethnic Turco-Mongol origin? (Its purely cultural)
I always thought persianized and persianate were pretty much the same and that persianate term applied to a society, and persianization applied to a certain group of people but if show that persianate can be applied to a group of people we actually might be closer in viewpoints than I thought.

But Jebenoyon I have not used the source wrongly you know aswell as I do that the Timurids are the only reason the Barlas are remembered and the most of them attained high positions and fiefdoms(mini courts) because of Timurid dynasty but were eventually forced downward by the Uzbeks and other Turko-Mongols into South Asia where they formed the Mughal dynasty.Timur was the leader of Barlas and the Barlas made up his army,allies, and relations.

@Mdann52None of my sources are invalid persianization is purely culturalIf Jebenoyon thinks that persianate works, I don't understand why persianized doesn't. But either way I donnot think we are actually that far apart( I thought that persianate was only applicable to society, it might be otherwise). If he wants to use persianate instead of persianized. I personally don't have a problem. He also seems to be willing to add South Asia and Iran which would be fair with me aswell.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jebenoyon give me one source that mentions the Barlas without mentioning the Timurids?
You can't.
Timurid and Barlas are pretty interchangeble because the Timurids made and led the whole Barlas to become a imperial ruling clan!--Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 @Nawabmalhi

1. Nawabmalhi you first threatened me that you would report me for vandalizing, then that you would report me to Wikipedia and I could potentially be banned, and now you threatened Mdann52 that you would Go to another editor who is "more experienced" than him. Your conduct is self evident to any discriminating and discerning individual and I do not wish to debate this matter with you.

2. Iran is a part of Central and South Asia. I never said "Change Greater Persia to Central and South Asia AND IRAN" so please do not mischaracterize my position. I said we can add South Asia to Central Asia but they moved into South Asia from central Asia and the second sentence on the page already addresses this and mentions Iran in that sentence along with other countries.

3. Actually Nawabmalhi the "Secret History of the Mongols", discovered hundreds of years after it was written, is regarded by most as the MOST DEFINITIVE AND AUTHENTIC SOURCE ON THE MONGOLS. IT MENTIONS THE BARLAS WITHOUT A SINGLE WORD ON THE TIMURIDS, WHO DID NOT EXIST WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN!!!!

THEREFORE, THE "Timurids" ARE NOT THE ONLY REASON THE BARLAS ARE REMEMBERED. THEY ORIGINATED FROM THE LEGENDARY MONGOL WARLORD, BODONACHIR MUNQQAQ, WHO WAS ALSO THE ANCESTOR OF GENGHIS KHAN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlas

"According to the Secret History of the Mongols, written during the reign of Ögedei Khan [r. 1229-1241], the Barlas shared ancestry with the Borjigin, the imperial clan of Genghis Khan and his successors, and other Mongol clans. The leading clan of the Barlas traced its origin to Qarchar Barlas,[1] head of one of Chagatai's regiments. Qarchar Barlas was a descendant of the legendary Mongol warlord Bodonchir (Bodon Achir; Bodon'ar Mungqaq), who was also considered a direct ancestor of Genghis Khan.[5] 1. B.F. Manz, The rise and rule of Tamerlan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989, p. 28: "... We know definitely that the leading clan of the Barlas tribe traced its origin to Qarchar Barlas, head of one of Chaghadai's regiments ... These then were the most prominent members of the Ulus Chaghadai: the old Mongolian tribes — Barlas, Arlat, Soldus and Jalayir ..." 5. René Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, Rutgers University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-81... (p.409)

IN ANY CASE, EVEN IF THE BARLAS ARE ONLY REMEMBERED BECAUSE OF THE TIMURIDS, WHICH AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE IS NOT THE CASE, BUT EVEN IF IT WERE, IT IS STILL WRONG TO CHARACTERIZE THE WHOLE CLAN AS "PERSIANIZED" JUST BECAUSE PERSIA WAS PART OF THE TIMURID EMPIRE AND THEY ADOPTED SOME PERSIAN CUSTOMS.

HERE IS THE BASIC MISTAKE YOU ARE MAKING. THE TIMURIDS AND MUGHALS, FAMOUS AS THEY WERE, ARE A SUBSET OF THE BARLAS, AND THE PERIOD THEY REPRESENT IS A SUBSET OF THE HISTORY OF THE BARLAS, AND THEY DO NOT DEFINE THE ETHNICITY AND MAKEUP OF THE ENTIRE CLAN FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF TIME.

THE BARLAS ARE NOT A SUBSET OF THE TIMURIDS OR THE MUGHALS JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE WORLD FAMOUS!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlas

"Its most famous representatives were the Timurids, a dynasty founded by the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century, who ruled over modern-day Iran, Afghanistan, much of Central Asia, as well as parts of contemporary Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Caucasus."

Iran is also already mentioned here, along with several other countries. There is no need to add it to the preceding sentence to the above, copied below, as well, which simply talks about where the clan was originally settled.

The Barlas (Chagatay/Persian: برلاس‎ Barlās; also Berlas; Mongolian: Barlas) were a Turco-Mongol[1][2] nomadic confederation in Central Asia.[3][4] Its most famous representatives were the Timurids, a dynasty founded by the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century, who ruled over modern-day Iran, Afghanistan, much of Central Asia, as well as parts of contemporary Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Caucasus."

3. Encyclopædia Britannica, "Timur", Online Academic Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timur was a member of the Barlas tribe, a Mongol subgroup that had settled in Transoxania (now roughly corresponding to Uzbekistan) after taking part in Genghis Khan's son Chagatai's campaigns in that region. Timur thus grew up in what was known as the Chagatai khanate." ... 4. G.R. Garthwaite, "The Persians", Malden, ISBN 978-1-55786-860-2, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. (p.148)

4. I do not entirely agree with the description of the Timurids as a "Persianate" society and have never said I do. I have shown a dozen credible sources that make no mention of Persian in the description of the Barlas. This is one article on the Timurids, who are a SUBSET of the Barlas, both in time and in numbers, and even here, as I show below, the sources are taken out of context so maybe I will attend to this after we are done here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_dynasty "The Timurid dynasty (Persian: تیموریان‎), self-designated Gurkānī [3][4][5] (Persian: گوركانى‎), was a Sunni Muslim Persianate[6][7] dynasty of Turco-Mongol lineage[7][8][9][10] that ruled over modern-day Iran, the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, much of Central Asia, as well as parts of contemporary Pakistan, Syria, India, Anatolia. The dynasty was founded by Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century." 6. Maria Subtelny, "Timurids in Transition", BRILL; illustrated edition (2007-09-30). pg 40: "Nevertheless, in the complex process of transition, members of the Timurid dynasty and their Turko-Mongol supporters became acculturate by the surrounding Persianate millieu adopting Persian cultural models and tastes and acting as patrons of Persian culture, painting, architecture and music." pg 41: '"The last members of the dynasty, notably Sultan-Abu Sa'id and Sultan-Husain, in fact came to be regarded as ideal Perso-Islamic rulers who develoted as much attention to agricultural development as they did to fostering Persianate court culture." 7. B.F. Manz, "Tīmūr Lang", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006 A source has been used in the Timurid article which says "ACTING AS PATRONS OF PERSIAN CULTURE" AND "THE LAST MEMBERS OF THIS DYNASTY CAME

TO BE REGARDED AS IDEAL PERSO-ISLAMIC RULERS WHO DEVOTED AS ,UCH ATTENTION TO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AS THEY DID TO FPOSTERING PERSIANATE COURT CULTURE" . TO USE THIS TO DESCRIBE THE WHOLE DYNASTY AS PERSIANATE IS WRONG IN MY OPINION AND, AS I SAID, I WILL DEAL WITH THAT AFTER THIS IS SETTLED. I HAD JUST NOT SEEN IT AND IT IS PONE ARTICLE, WHICH IS USING A SOURCE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND I HAVE PROVIDED A DOZEN PERTINENT SOURCES THAT MAKE NO MENTION OF PERSIAN. In summary, I do not agree with using "Persianate" instead of "Persianized" and will also deal with the Timurid Article, which I say is factually wrong - starting out with describing them as a "Persianate" dynasty. In any case, even if they were, which I do not believe, just because they were fampous doesnt mean that their adoption of some culture from the Persians make the whole race "Persianized" or a "Persianate." At best, that was a small subset of the clan, at a brief moment in time and does not speak to their origins and is not the proper way to describe them.

Iran is already included in the second sentence on the Barlas page- there is no need to include it again in the first one. The Burden of proof was on you nawabmalhi, and you have simply not met it whatsoever. You cannot turn this around on Mdann52 or myself by asking us to prove you wrong - you are the one who had had many chances to prove this and cannot because it simply is not true. I sympathize with your religious sentiments, but they do not reflect the makeup of my people. Thank you. Jebenoyon (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jebenoyon:
1.the source which you gave does mention the Timurids but the mention of a Barlas ancestor does not mean the ancestor gave the clan prominence but instead to soley trace the roots of the timurids.
2. Read the sources I gave you which shows that Even Timur was a ideal Perso-Islamic ruler
3. The timurids specifically along most of the Barlas were definetley persianized I gave you 8 valid sources
4. But I understand your point that maybe some segments may not have personally this is my first time hearing this
5. Till I find a source that specifically mentions Barlas in general I will not write persianized;however I do think it is important to mention that Timurids and Mughals were persianized and will reference this with the sources I gave you
6. And PLEASE understand that persianization in NOT ethnic but cultural Read persianization and Turko-Persian tradition
7. Again I did not threaten anyone to be honest you threatened report me I told you not to Edit War and asked Mdann52 if their was forum were a more specialized editor(in this area) could look at the issue --Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 @Nawabmalhi

1. The Source I gave you that mentions the Barlas without a word on the Timurids is what is regarded as the leading source on the Mongols, called the "Secret History of the Mongols." This has nothing to do with the Timurids and you are once again setting up a mischaracterization of what I said and then arguing against the false premise you yourself have set up. Here is what I said:

"3. Actually Nawabmalhi the "Secret History of the Mongols", discovered hundreds of years after it was written, is regarded by most as the MOST DEFINITIVE AND AUTHENTIC SOURCE ON THE MONGOLS. IT MENTIONS THE BARLAS WITHOUT A SINGLE WORD ON THE TIMURIDS, WHO DID NOT EXIST WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN!!!!"

You are wrongfully taking the next paragraph, which only REFERS to the "Secret History of the Mongols" and taking the sources for THAT PARAGRAPH, setting up, as usual, a wrong premise yourself that has nothing to do with what I said, and then arguing against it! read the "Secret History of the Mongols" if you are such a student of the barlas clan and rest assured YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE SINGLE WORD IN IT ON THE TIMURIDS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EXIST THEN, BUT THE BARLAS ARE MENTIONED BECAUSE THEY DID EXIST THEN!

2. Have you not read any of what I have written? It doesn't matter what ONE source says about Timur - I have provided ONE DOZEN better sources that say nothing about the Barlas being 'Persianized" 3. And I have given a dozen valid sources that make no mention of persian - what part of carrying the "Burden of proof" do you not understand? 4. I am glad you get this, qualified though your statement is 5. You need to mention "Persianization" in a limited context and way down on the page somewhere - not to start the page as if that defines them in their entirety! 6. I do understand this but the way you are trying to present it, making it the first word in the description of the clans origins, was and remains inappropriate. It is like describing the British as "The British were an Indianized group...." just because some British became Indianized during the British rule in india.

Jebenoyon (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jebenoyon The modern western sources were using the Secret History of Mongols to trace the origin of the timurids, mention of the Barlas ancestor does not signify any importance of Barlas since we link the ancestor to the Barlas clan so you have not shown any source that mentions Barlas and not Timurids. Overall all, we are in agreement--Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 @Nawabmalhi

Nawabmalhi 'it does not matter what the modern sources were using the "Secret History of the Mongols" for - The 'Secret History of the Mongols" ITSELF IS A SOURCE THAT MENTIONS BARLAS WITHOUT MENTIONING THE TIMURIDS AS I SAID VERY, VERY CLEARLY. IT IS CLEAR YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THIS BOOK WHICH IS A MUCH TREASURED SOURCE ON THE MONGOLS, AND FROM WHICH MUCH IS QUOTED BY MANY. IT MENTIONS THE BARLAS WITHOUT MENTIONING THE TIMURIDS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ASKED ME TO SHOW, WHICH IS NOT EVEN RELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND BUT WHICH I SHOWED CLEARLY ANYWAY. NOW YOU INTRODUCE A NEW FACET, THE IMPORTANCE OR LACK OF IMPORTANCE OF THE BARLAS CLAN WITH OR WITHOUT THE TIMURIDS- THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR ETHNICITY AND HOW THEY ARE DESCRIBED. YOU ARE PLAIN WRONG AND YOUR ARGUMENTS MAKE NO SENSE AND DO NOT FLOW. ANYONE READING THIS CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES. AGAIN YOU MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT WAS SAID, PRESENT IT OUT OF CONTEXT, ADDRESS NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE, AND TRY TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE WITH IRRELEVANT THINGS YOU HAVE CREATED ALL ON YOUR OWN.' LET'S NOT TRY TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE OVER AND OVER AND OVER.Jebenoyon (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I think the best solution I can prose, with the evidence presented here, is that the existing wording of the article remains. Unless I see any decisive evidence (as opposed to WP:SYNTH and sources failing WP:RS, I will close this shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52 NawabMalhi says "Overall we are in agreement" at the end of his last comment and so I suggest this matter be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Heroes" (David Bowie song)

– New discussion.

Filed by 174.141.182.82 on 18:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• "Heroes" (David Bowie song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 174.141.182.82 (talk · contribs)
• Edokter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement over whether quotation marks in a title, acknowledged by Wikipedia as part of the title, should be treated as quotation marks in text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started the discussion on the article Talk page, in which I feel I made several polite requests that he respect the previous consensus by leaving the nested quotation marks in per WP:STATUSQUO and seek a new consensus, possibly by requesting that the article and the related "Heroes" article be renamed sans quotation marks. The other editor has refused on all counts.

How do you think we can help?

If at all possible, please evaluate the current project-wide consensus regarding the quotation of titles which contain quotation marks. I thought it was a rule of standard written English that such quotation marks are nested and alternated between single and double, but the closest Wikipedia comes to codifying this grammar rule seems to be at WP:MOS#Double or single. Failing that, please tell us which version of the article is the status quo.

Summary of dispute by 174.141.182.82

For over a year, the text of the article "Heroes" (David Bowie song) (named for a song title that includes scare quotes) has quoted the song's title as "'Heroes'", including the title's quotation marks as part of the title. A couple weeks ago, without any discussion, User:Edokter edited the article to remove the nested quotation marks, making the quoted title (with no irony quotes) inconsistent with the article's title (which includes irony quotes) and ignoring the RM consensus that added the titular quotation marks.

When I noticed this change yesterday, I reverted to the status quo that stood for over a year since that RM discussion and started discussion on the Talk page. He has since repeatedly reinstated his changes. My position is that the changes made a couple weeks ago treat the title as if it does not include quotation marks when the consensus of the move request was that it in fact does, and that per WP:STATUSQUO the nested quote marks should remain as they were for over a year while they're debated. I feel I have politely and repeatedly asked this editor to respect these points and to seek consensus, and he has repeatedly refused on all counts.

Notes

Summary of dispute by Edokter

The title in itself is not in dispute, so the RM has no bearing here. My edit targeted the ocurrences of ‹"Heroes"› in the article. For one, the nested quotation has been misapplied, changing the double quote marks, which are part of the title, to single quote marks. The correct nesting would have to be (spaces added for clarity): ‹ ' " Heroes " ' ›. However, it looks awquard either way and since we are not dealing with an actual quotation, but with a stylized song title, I opted to remove the nesting quote marks, and let the quote marks as part of the title double as the quote marks used for denoting single works (songs and episodes).

The MOS does not handle this situation very well, because the situation is so rare (if not unique), so I welcome any discussion. However, trying to apply current MOS standards will result in these kind of disputes. What 174.141.182.82 needs to understand is that his desired change needs consensus, and that edit warring to his preferred version is not the proper procedure, and that he should discuss first. My edit stood long enough, with multiple edits by other editors since, so that 174.141.182.82's initial edit can no longer be labelled a 'revert'. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Heroes" (David Bowie song) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Waiting for comments by Edokter before I make a decision on whether to take this myself. However, I would like to note that if edit warring continues while the case is open, I will turn this over to WP:AN3. I would also like to note that the consensus reached in the RM discussions should be considered. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Beat me by a second. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think I should have taken it to AN3 when Edokter refused to respect WP:STATUSQUO. But I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, and I’m still waiting to hear how the title by consensus for over a year ceased to be the status quo before my initial revert, how I’m the one trying to “change” it by reverting his undiscussed changes, or how irony quotes don’t grammatically “count” as quotes. Our MOS makes no such distinction, nor do any grammar or style guides I’m aware of. Yes, nesting the quotes looks awkward to some, but it’s correct—if you were to quote the phrase, I don’t need a “hero”, you would include the irony quotes: “I don’t need a ‘hero’.” Each set of quotes serves the same function in the case of this title, and if you’re going to ignore grammatical rules for aesthetic reasons, you need consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I’m going to revert it one last time with an explanatory post on the Talk page. Edokter, if you want to push your changes through again and accuse me of edit warring for insisting on discussion first, then so be it. But I’m hoping that nonsense is over and you’d rather discuss your proposed changes, whether here or on that Talk page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it was reverted back, I’ve taken the WP:STATUSQUO question to WP:AN3 (edit: declined). That doesn’t settle the content question, though, so I’m still open to discussion here or on the article’s Talk page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute

– New discussion.

Filed by AmericanDad86 on 23:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs)
• Wattlebird (talk · contribs)
• 108.226.145.151 (talk · contribs)
• Koala15 (talk · contribs)
• Davejohnsan (talk · contribs)
• Spongey253 (talk · contribs)
• KYLE (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Consensus has been reached on a disputed edit at the American Dad! article as shown by the discussion here Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute, yet User WattleBird has reverted despite consensus and is now pretending like various editors agree with him when they've actually expressed disagreement with him.

I have made every attempt to avoid an edit war and be reasonable with User: WattleBird regarding this edit at the American Dad! article, that includes reaching out to individuals at Fox and starting up the discussion at the talk page so as to seek a consensus regarding the edit all as shown here Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute. All my efforts have been met with disruption from the user. As you'll see by the article, all editors who have contributed to the discussion besides WattleBird himself and 1 other user have expressed opposition to his desired edit.

The long and short of the editing dispute in question is that season 10 of the American Dad! aired during 2013-14. A 15-episode season 11 is to begin on October 30, 2014, on TBS. However, Fox recently issued a new report that there are 3 episodes left to air on Fox on September 14 and September 21. WattleBird believes this recent announcement is reason to change everything up, so that the 3 episodes of American Dad! on Fox are considered their very own season, a "microseason 11" as he describes it, and now the 15 episodes on TBS, a season 12. As shown by the discussion, all editors besides 1 user have expressed opposition to that.

When consensus against the 3 episode micro-season became clear, I went ahead and edited the article accordingly but was reverted by WattleBird here [1].

As of today, User Koala and User Kyle have elaborated their disagreement. The user is acting like consensus doesn't matter, but that his opinion is refuted to his satisfaction.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have also contacted the Fox article that WattleBird seems to think supports his claim that the 3 episodes are a season all by themselves. I reported to all involved in discussion that I ask if they could revise the article to make it more clear since nothing seemed to be convincing WattleBird, not even consensus. WattleBird dismissed that idea and basically said it wouldn't prove anything.

How do you think we can help?

Given the editor seems to be flat-out ignoring consensus, ignoring the users that disagree with him, I don't know how else to communicate with this individual. He has even began to dismiss the concept of consensus, stating something to User Kyle on how it shouldn't matter if a lot of people vote against him because, according to him no one has proven their argument against him as shown here [2]

Summary of dispute by WattleBird

The reason that the episodes should be split into a separate season is that the official FOX press release explicitly refers to these episodes as follows:

AMERICAN DAD wraps up its run on FOX with three all-new episodes this fall. First, in the special one-hour season premiere[3]

It doesn't says "Season 10 resumes", "the Fall premiere" or any similar. It clearly says "season premiere" which indicates that it should be separate from the previous season. This is an official press release from FOX — the network that airs the show — and is therefore extremely unlikely to contain incorrect information.

AmericanDad86 disagrees with this, and insists that the batch of three episodes should be considered to be part of the tenth season. However, he has not been able to provide a valid source for his claim. In the inital discussion on the talk page he started, he tried to use articles that pre-dated the FOX press release that referred to the TBS episodes as season 11 (which at that point was correct, because then no-one outside of FOX knew there were still unaired episodes) and a lack of Google search results as sources.

When I pointed out that none of these were valid references for his claim, he never responded to my comments and then later tried to use a third-party article to justify his claim[4] which isn't equal to or greater than an official FOX press release. When I pointed this out to him he replied:

You came to a conclusion based upon vague wording

In which Davejohnsan replied:

How is "season premiere" and "season finale" not specific enough?

Once again, AmericanDad86 never replied to this question as he simply could not answer it. Especially when the definition of "season premiere" on Google is:

A season premiere is the first episode of a new season of an established television show. Many season premieres are aired in the fall time or, for mid-season replacements, either in the spring or late winter.[5]

At this point, he never offered any new sources to back up his claim, replied to any questions or requests asked of him and instead just began exclusively replying to people that agreed with him. He simply refused to discuss the issue any further and clearly felt as though he had said all he needed to. Then once he felt he had enough people agreeing with him, he felt consensus had been reached and that he could edit the article as he saw fit.

However, consensus was not reached. A mere "vote" had taken place where two people "voted" with AmericanDad86, one "voted" with me, and another offered an alternative that was completely ignored by AmericanDad86. To this date, AmericanDad86 never presented a valid, referenced argument for:

• why his idea was correct.
• why the FOX press release should be considered invalid.

This is in contrast to me, where I have presented the two following key points:

• FOX clearly labeled the episode that aired on May 18th 2014 as the season finale[6]. Note: FOX would have been aware there were still unaired episodes at this point.
• FOX clearly labeled the first two episodes to air on September 14th 2014 as a season premiere[7].

How can anyone possibly consider these two sets of episodes to be the same season when there is absolutely no ambiguity here, nor does one press release contradict the other in anyway.

When I made it clear that I felt consensus had not been reached, rather than discussing it on the talk page, he has been reverting edits and complaining to administrators. At no point has he tried to discuss with me about why I feel consensus hasn't been reached, despite my efforts to discuss this with him.

Finally, if this is truely how consensus is reached, then I should just get friends to sign-up for Wikipedia, "vote" for me and then I'd "win" consensus. I'm not replying to this conflict report to "win" for the way I feel the article should be presented, I'm replying to get a response that consensus hasn't been reached and that the issue does need to be discussed further.

Summary of dispute by 108.226.145.151

I had actually thought a consensuses had been reached earlier, reverting to the one season fewer method/microseason 10 as both AmericanDad86 [8] and Wattlebird had seemed to agree to for several days. [9][10] Spongey253 is also on board with this last I saw. [11] --108.226.145.151 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Koala15

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

It's pretty clear that these 3 extra episodes are just leftovers from season 10, since 23 were originally ordered. So it makes sense to just put it in this season, and i'm sure as the air dates get closer we should get better sources that say the same thing. Koala15 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Davejohnsan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

American Dad! concluded its tenth and final season on the Fox network in May of this year. However, on July 20, Fox published a press release indicating that the series was scheduled to return this fall for its "final run on Fox." It is set to air two episodes on September 14 in what Fox calls the "one-hour season premiere" before airing its "final FOX episode" the following week." That is the source of the dispute here - whether these three episodes are part of its season, the conclusion of the season that ended back in May, or the beginning of the season that is to begin its broadcast on TBS (the series' new network) this coming fall. I do not believe any consensus can be reached here until Wattlebird and AmericanDad86 work with one another and end this standoff. Davejohnsan (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Spongey253

Yes, I agree with the one season shorter fewer making the "microseason" Season 10, however making the "microseason", Season 11 and TBS' Season 12 seems like a real bullshit idea to me.

Summary of dispute by KYLE.

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

As per FOX press release, the season (10) premier airs September 14th 2014 .

As per show runner Matt Weitzman & the information from the 2014 ComicCon panel, the show moves to TBS on October 30th & then regularly airs on Mondays. The episodes that air October 30th on, are part of Season 10. KYLE (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

No personal attacks. We are here to discuss content only.

Wattlebird has continued to make false accusations that I have not addressed his position on the talk page. Both myself and others have detailed our position against him and he has continued to falsely accuse myself and others of not addressing his points. In fact, when he instates his edit here (which he has repeatedly been doing against several editors before consensus for his edit), User:Koala15 tells Wattlebird pointblank that he's blatantly making things up, acting as though I have not addressed his arguments, as shown here [12]. And I am not the only one on the receiving end of his false accusations as to not addressing his arguments. He accuses User:KYLE of the same thing here [13] when KYLE already elaborated on his position. KYLE once again informs the user that there is no three episode season here [14]. As Koal15 said, the user also has also been lying and making things up to get his way, such as acting like users have agreed with him when they've expressed disagreement. For example, Wattlebird claimed he received no opposition at all from User:Spongey252 and that I ignoring this, as shown here [15]. However, User:Spongey253 has expressed complete disagreement with Wattlebird in all of his posts on the matter, such as shown here where he states "No season 11 and season 12 shyt" [16], here where he opposes the 3 episode microseason very clearly [17], and here where he incorporates the three episodes as being the end of season 10 (not there own separate season) [18]. Apparently, this isn't clear to Wattlebird and he thinks this user agrees with him however. Either he's just making things up or I'm assuming he has troubles reading. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Adminstrative note: Please wait until all parties have given their summary and a DRN volunteer has opened the case before making any comments in this section.Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297

– New discussion.

Filed by SilentDan297 on 13:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SilentDan297 (talk · contribs)
• Moscow Connection (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

numerous disagreements regarding the articles format on the members and discography section. These arguments have spread across multiple sections and a consensus is yet to be made due to this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking for third opinions, citing to FA standard articles and citing to guidelines and templates.

How do you think we can help?

By explaining to both users how the article should follow and the importance of guidelines and template articles.

Summary of dispute by Moscow Connection

SilentDan297 simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT the article and this request is a WP:DEADHORSE. I'm already bored and annoyed to death. I just wish I wasn't away on June 19 when SilentDan297 changed the whole article. On that day he was reverted by an IP and started edit warring. On that day, he violated 3RR by reverting five times in 42 minutes (1, 2, 3, 4 , 5) and he won and he WP:OWNed the article ([19]) until July 16 when I returned and reverted some of his changes.

Since then, the user just can't stop creating walls of text on the talk page. He has already started several discussions about this matter.

• First, he requested a third opinion. The third opinion wasn't favorable to him: Talk:Babymetal#Third opinion (as best one can). Basically, the editor said that either way will do. And that SilentDan297's desire to change the discography section was WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Then, he asked a Wikipedia acquaintance of him to come by and to help him with as he said a person who was edit warring (i.e. me): User talk:STATicVapor#Edit warring on Babymetal article. The acquaintance liked some of his proposals better and he also had his own ideas about how the article should look and changed the article accordingly. I was absolutely sure some of the editor's changes made the article incorrect and even terribly incorrect, but I stopped arguing cause I had other things to do.
• But since not all of SilentDan297's desires were implemented, he continued creating walls of text on the Babymetal talkpage.
• Then I didn't edit for several days, and he thought I wasn't looking and on August 4 he again changed the article to look exactly the way he liked. The next day I reverted him. He reverted me back with an edit summary saying he had a consensus, which quite possibly was an intentional lie: [20].
• Today, after I begged him to stop torturing me on the talk page, he seemed to say that he will only ask Bbb23 and then he will stop: [21]. But Bbb223 didn't come and now we have this DRN request.
• This is just crazy. I think the editor must be advised to take a very long break from the Babymetal article's talk page. And if he doesn't, he should be blocked for a day or two for starting the edit war and for his disruptive and counterproductive behavior.
  Also, I think he was trolling me in this comment: [22]. (Cause I replied saying that he misinterpreted what another editor said and that he seemed to be ready to make any, even incorrect changes to the article just to win an argument over me, and he replied saying he wasn't a troll: [23]. He said the word himself, I'm just repeating...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Heads up, vaguely involved in that I've participated in some discussions on the talk page. I'm not going to state very much here, hopefully, particularly as it's not yet opened. IMO, many of SilentDan's "walls of text" (as MC put it) on the talk page were attempts at discussion, at least the ones I did respond to and/or look at. I don't personally believe that any of the statements of consensus were made in bad faith, either. I don't really have much to say about the content dispute at hand here (other than that the chaos around this discussion and its fairly not-closed-ness makes this DRN report not DEADHORSE and, IMO, somewhat necessary, actually), as I've spent most of the time I've had for this on the talk page and haven't looked at the article's history, but looking at what usually gets said, it appears that SilentDan is treating this as a content dispute (what it is, IMO) whereas Moscow Connection appears to be repeatedly trying to raise a conduct dispute (I've seen at least four instances, here included, of his want and/or intent to get SilentDan blocked). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)