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
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	Resolved	Sariel Xilo (t)	26 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	11 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 10 hours	WhatamIdoing (t)	8 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	New	Kautilyapundit (t)	9 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 22 hours	Kautilyapundit (t)	2 days, 22 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	5 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days, 23 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	New	Abo Yemen (t)	8 hours	None	n/a	Javext (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 23:46, 31 December 2024 (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)

References

References

Historicity of Jesus

Filed by IseeEwe on 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved IseeEwe (talk · contribs) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) Smeat75 (talk · contribs) Mmeijeri (talk · contribs) Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs) Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) Wdford (talk · contribs) Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) Blackthorne2k (talk · contribs) John Carter (talk · contribs) Wickorama (talk · contribs) Woerkilt (talk · contribs) Themoother (talk · contribs) Sparkveela (talk · contribs) Lyingforjebus (talk · contribs) Edit Centric (talk · contribs) Spirit469 (talk · contribs) Saddhiyama (talk · contribs) Martijn Meijering (talk · contribs) Rbreen (talk · contribs) Huon (talk · contribs) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) Since this list is really, really long I'd like to ask that if you are not a major player in this dispute to keep your summaries really short. The DRN case will be easier to handle. Thanks for understanding, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Dispute overview There is considerable discussion in Historicity of Jesus about the inclusion of so-called "minority" opinions. Basically it boils down to, whose citations represent a valid contribution, and what is the scope of "most scholars". There has been considerable push back over many months and years to the inclusion of scholarship that falls outside of the one school of thought protected within this article: namely biblical scholarship based almost exclusively on theological historical-criticism. From a broader academic perspective, inclusive of seminal archaeologists, philosophers and different types of biblical scholars, the positions in this article are challenged. I have made a bold edit, fully referenced, which is challenged and reverted by a select portion of the watchers, without discussion, debate or assumptions of good faith. Please review to assess the possibility of external moderation. It would be appreciated. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided a bold edit, fully referenced. I have tried to discuss my edits and references. I have written to individual editors. I have requested discussion of their concerns. I have asked for external review at Wikipedia:Requests for comment How do you think we can help? The editors of this article are a tightly knit bunch that largely assert a single POV, make claims about "sock puppetry", and refuse engagement with new text. My entire effort is to broaden the material to include the POV of other major academic disciplines and schools of thought. I do not think this is being heard. External moderation may help editors to listen, accept the validity of different perspectives, provide for a balanced conversation, and accept new content. One can only hope. Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. According to most of the citations in the stable article and related articles, the views that IseeEwe is trying to give (at least) equal validity are fringe and minority opinions. He has tried to justify this by presenting any sources arguing for the historicity of Jesus as inherently religiously-biased, with the only "neutral" scholars agreeing with his views. After seeing that we've had this exact same discussion with another user (User:Fearofreprisal), he made the exact sort of edits multiple editors told Fearofreprisal that there just wasn't any consensus for. After making his bold edit, his edit was reverted by multiple editors, which he took to be merely "local consensus" (even claiming that "Consensus is not required") and attempted to twist WP:BRD into "BDR," placing the onus on us to create a consensus (again, despite the previous consensus established when Fearofreprisal tried to push for this same stuff) to remove his changes rather than him having to create consensus to restore his changes. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Smeat75 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mmeijeri There has been a dispute about the impartiality of this article for a very long time. It is not true that the editors who are taking part in discussion on the Talk page are all in favour of retaining the article as it is. Several editors including yours truly have argued for changes. There has long been a neutrality tag on the article, and I believe I was the last one to add it. I think it's unreasonable for User:IseeEwe to go to dispute resolution hours at most after a bold edit of his was reverted. In addition several of us suspect ISeeEwe of being a sockpuppet of User:Fearofreprisal. I doubt dispute resolution is the proper mechanism here. That said, I do believe the current article is biased. It represents the views of biblical scholarship almost as if they were the "opinion of science", in the same way that other articles might treat the views of biologists on evolution. In my opinion this gives undue deference to biblical scholarship. Scholars both inside and outside the field have said that the research in question suffers from bias and unsound historical methodology. The historian Akenson in particularly has been scathing about this. Even among biblical scholars several writers have said many Historical Jesus researchers practice theology while calling it history. In my view the views of biblical scholars should be presented as notable opinions, not as facts and not in Wikipedia voice. The article should also give an overview of various other points of view, describe what groups of scholars have and have not studied the matter and discuss some of the objections that have been raised back and forth. As far as I can tell there are at least two ways to divide the scholars who have weighed in on the matter: by opinion on the historicity of Jesus and by scholarly background. Starting with the latter, we can identify the views of biblical scholars, views proposed by those who study Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, views by a handful of historians, views from several serious scholars publishing outside their main field of professional expertise, views from faith backgrounds, and views from antireligious or atheist backgrounds. Regrettably for the sake of our article, very few historians have published on the matter. We do have strong opinions by several prominent historians that the issue is not in serious doubt by the historical community. Note that even Akenson who has been so scathing about biblical scholars does agree with their conclusions. In general, most scholars support historicity. Nevertheless all categories (even those of the religious background!) include a few, sometimes extremely few, who deny historicity. Scholars who support historicity come mainly from biblical scholarship, with a very small number of historians, though we have strong evidence most historians agree with their conclusions, even if they don't find the issue worthy of a lot of study or if they have doubts about the soundness of the methodology employed by biblical scholars. Scholars who oppose historicity also include biblical scholars, and former biblical scholars / scholars who have left or lost their former teaching and research positions. A prominent place among writers who oppose historicity is taken by several serious scholars from other disciplines, such as G.A. Wells and Alvar Ellegård. A very prominent place is taken up by nonacademic popular writers, who have been dismissed as crackpots and amateurs by some biblical scholars who favour historicity. It may be noted that in the early 20th century the issue was taken much more seriously among various groups of scholars. In summary, I believe the current article does a good job of identifying the point of view in favour of historicity as the more scholarly prominent one, but a very bad job of giving an overview of all the points of view, a description of the various categories of scholars who hold them, the history of the views held and of the discussion between various viewpoints, including accusations back and forth about bias, methodological soundness and academic qualifications. In particular it gives undue credibility to biblical scholarship by failing to mention the severe criticism of it by both historians and some prominent biblical scholars themselves and fails to properly distinguish between biblical scholars and historians and fails to note that very very few historians have studied the matter. Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Of course, verifiable information based upon reliable sources should not get summarily deleted, however I have two objections: the wording is too categorical (it is like presenting the Truth instead of an alternative viewpoint) and it does not belong in the Historicity of Jesus but in Historical criticism, since it is a general point about the later, and does not exactly address whether Jesus really existed. So, it is not specific enough for the former. So my solution is: move it inside the proper article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC) To be more clear, the issue raised is one level of abstraction above the question of the existence of Jesus, and it discusses whether Bible scholars and archaeologists are on the same page or not, and whether Bible scholarship could be used to establish historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Huon I came late to the dispute when I checked one of the references for IseeEwe's proposed change and found it didn't say what it was cited for. Upon request for a more appropriate page number of the given reference, IseeEwe made ridiculous counter-claims and personal attacks which I doubt they can back up with a diff. "I will not debate academia, scholarship or sources with you" is not an appropriate reply to a request for clarification when one blatantly mis-represented a source. I'd say it's not an appropriate reply on Wikipedia, ever. Huon (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HiLo48 Uninvited visitor here, who bumbled into this particular discussion, but who has upset hard core Christian editors in the past by making what some see as the outrageous suggestion that Christian scholars are in fact the worst possible source on the matter of the historicity of Jesus. The view of someone whose faith demands that they believe is hardly going to be objective. Such people have an obvious conflict of interest, and should be not just balanced by other views, but actually ignored. Yes, it's a radical view. Feel free to discuss it. (But not me. That's what usually happens.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Fearofreprisal Here are the events leading up to the dispute: IseeEwe posts a series of sourced edits [1] IseeEwe starts a talk page discussion [2] Smeat75 reverts IseeEwe's edits, saying: rv non consensus changes. [3] Smeat75 responds to IseeEwe's talk page discussion, but does not address the reversion, or his reason for it. [4] IseeEwe continues discussion on talk page. Reverts again, saying: If you have a problem with the references, then go off and develop a consensus. Your voice and opinion are not a consensus. [5] Ian.thomson reverts, saying: No, per WP:BRD, YOU have to develop consensus. It's BRD, not BRRD, or BRRRRD. [6] IseeEwe reverts again, saying: Local consensus is opposed by Wikipedia:Editing policy. Wait for external review. IseeEwe requests external review, at WP:RFC. Continues discussion on talk page. Ian.thomson reverts again, saying: Editing policy includes WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, which multiple users have told you that you're violating. Establish consensus and quit edit warring. IseeEwe requests Dispute Resolution, posts notice of this on talk page. He finally starts getting a few meaningful responses. It appears that IseeEwe followed all the relevant WP:POLICIES. Smeat75 and Ian.thomson improperly reverted his edits on the premise that he needed to obtain consensus prior to making changes. Ian.thomson improperly reverted a second time on the premise that IseeEwe's posts violated NPOV and UNDUE. (I suspect that they were working together, to avoid violating WP:3RR) Smeat75 and Ian.thomson's reasons for reverting, besides being improper, appear to be red herrings. While I admire Smeat75 and Ian.thomson's contributions to WP, they, and several other of the users (some of which are listed in this dispute), are among a persistent group of editors who regularly use claims of CONSENSUS, NPOV, UNDUE, FRINGE, RS, and OR to suppress any edits to the article which challenge the Christian ideology that Jesus' existence is beyond question. (This is not an accusation - it's an observation.) I do not expect this discussion, or even a formal mediation, to result in a resolution or any meaningful change. The users who are being called to task here are very experienced, skillful, and dedicated WP editors. I doubt anything short of an outright ban would have an impact on them. And they're way too experienced to get banned. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Comment by Formerip The problems with the article stem from that fact that the existence or otherwise of Jesus is a question that, in living memory, has been of interest almost exclusively to Bible scholars. AFAICT, there has been absolutely no significant and reasonably recent examination of the matter outside of that context. So, the issue isn't about whether "mainstream" historians agree or disagree with Bible scholars. They simply do not seem to be interested in the question. That's hardly surprising, since the only real evidence available for scrutiny is the Bible. It is highly misleading, then, to attribute the views of Bible scholars more generally to "historians". The fact that a (somewhat self-serving) source has done so is not a good reason for WP to repeat the error. The claim itself (that "most modern scholars of antiquity" believe Jesus existed) is extraordinary, and should require extraordinary sourcing. Since there are so many of them and they are all or almost all professionally silent on the question, how can any source claim to know what they think? We can, perhaps, confidently say that few historians actively deny the existence of Jesus, but that is not the same thing. Formerip (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Historicity of Jesus discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator note: I notified all listed involved parties. Thanks! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Seems to me that Historicity of Jesus is about Jesus through the lens of history, not of Bible study, so our focus should be on what actual historians, not Bible scholars playing historian, have to say. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, Biblical scholars, virtually by definition, have a fundamental conflict of interest when editing on this topic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Yeah, like oncologists have when writing about cancer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Oncologists are qualified to talk about cancer. Bible scholars are qualified to talk about the Bible. Formerip (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2014 (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.

"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)

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 [7].

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 [8]

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[9]

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[10] 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.[11]

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[12]. 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[13].

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 [14] and Wattlebird had seemed to agree to for several days. [15][16] Spongey253 is also on board with this last I saw. [17] --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

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

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 [18]. 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 [19] when KYLE already elaborated on his position. KYLE once again informs the user that there is no three episode season here [20]. 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 [21]. 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" [22], here where he opposes the 3 episode microseason very clearly [23], and here where he incorporates the three episodes as being the end of season 10 (not there own separate season) [24]. 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

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

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.

Talk:Caliph

– New discussion.

Filed by Salim e-a ebrahim on 18:08, 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:Caliph (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Salim e-a ebrahim (talk · contribs)
• NeilN (talk · contribs)
• Peaceworld111 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1. There is a bully of a Wiki Admin who is threatening to block me unless I toe his line. He uses technical language to cut short any attempt from my side to explain anything whatsoever. He has now started becoming abusive by calling me "RELIGIOUSLY PREJUDICED". When I explained why I am not prejudiced at all, he called my explanation "DISRUPTIVE" using the technicality that I was treating the talk page as a discussion forum. But he had no qualms calling me publicly that I was "RELIGIOUSLY PREJUDICED"! Naturally I took time and trouble to explain why I was not instead of calling him names in return! So what does he expect me to do? Simply shut up and let him get his way?

2. He is completely ignorant of how to judge between two edits in terms of both the edits having primary sources altho I tried my level best to explain how to do that also in what he pejoratively described as my "disruptive" explanation on the talk page.

3. In my view when the article relies ONLY on primary sources from both sides then the better primary sources win the battle. So, since the Quran and the Hadith are far superior primary sources than the Ahmadiyya scriptural sources than they should be given a place in the article also as references. This person refuses to do even that little bit! He only wants his own edit with the Ahmadiyya primary sources and that edit even begins with a belief sentence and the word "BELIEVE".

4. He simply reverts whatever I do to improve the article and then threatens to block me if I undo his revert. He himself never makes any attempt to improve the article itself like I have done so many times.

5. He is simplistic in his thinking and does not know how to evaluate two edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the next step after the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Explain to us who is right or wrong and why. The problem is very simple in my thinking and it is that my version of the article gives both sides of the issue and references from both sides and explanations from both sides and so let the reader judge the content for themselves. The other two editors are behaving as if they own the article.

Summary of dispute by NeilN

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

Summary of dispute by Peaceworld111

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

Talk:Caliph discussion

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