If you are going to resort to shouting and insults, with no background for your arguements, I have far better things to deal with. If user conduct is an issue, please go to WP:ANI. In fact, I could quite easily go there now and get you both sanctioned. Move on both of you and do something else to calm down. --Mdann52talk to me!07:17, 10 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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.
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?
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: 12345678
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)
@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 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.[5][9][10] 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[11] 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.[12]--Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:35, 7 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
^Zahir ud-Din Mohammad (2002-09-10). Thackston, Wheeler M. (ed.). The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. Modern Library Classics. ISBN0-375-76137-3. Note: Gurkānī is the Persianized form of the Mongolian word "qürügän" ("son-in-law"), the title given to the dynasty's founder after his marriage into Genghis Khan's family.
^Edward Balfour The Encyclopaedia Asiatica, Comprising North India, Eastern and Southern Asia, Cosmo Publications 1976, S. 460, S. 488, S. 897
^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."
^Encyclopædia Britannica, "Timurid Dynasty", Online Academic Edition, 2007. (Quotation:...Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia....Trading and artistic communities were brought into the capital city of Herat, where a library was founded, and the capital became the centre of a renewed and artistically brilliant Persian culture...)
^B. Spuler, "Central Asia in the Mongol and Timurid periods", published in Encyclopædia Iranica, Online Edition, 2006/7, (LINK): "... Like his father, Olōğ Beg was entirely integrated into the Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarqand until the Russian revolution 1917 [...] Ḥoseyn Bāyqarā encouraged the development of Persian literature and literary talent in every way possible ..."
^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
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:
"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, ISBN978-0-19-517726-8, p. 101.
3. G. R. Garthwaite, "The Persians", Malden, ISBN978-1-55786-860-2, 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, ISBN92-3-103467-7, 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 ..."
"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.
"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."
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)
@Mdann52their 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.
@Jebenoyonwhat 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.
"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!!!!
"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, ISBN978-1-55786-860-2, 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 culturalRead 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 The modern western sources were using the Secret History of the 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) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jebenoyon Let me explain again: Mention of the Barlas ancestor does not signify any importance of Barlas since the author of the western book links the ancestor to the Barlas clan (Not Secret History of the Mongols (full book)) and the Barlas are not mentioned in the text specifically, so you have not shown any source that mentions Barlas and not Timurids. The source you are using to quote (Secret History of the Mongols) FROM is about Timur and Timurids--Nawabmalhi (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2014
@-NawabmalhiAnd Let me also explain again, in fact let me show exactly 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!!!!
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.
This is what I said.
Then I went ON TO SAY, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE PRECEDING:
"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]
The fact that the source that refers to the "Secret History of the Mongols" in this particular article is the reference below, and is a book on Timur, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS IS ABOUT TIMUR, AND THE QUOTE ABOVE DIRECTLY SAYS THE BARLAS ARE MENTIONED IN THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS, WHICH DOES NOT MNTION TIMUR BECAUSE HE DID NOT EVEN EXIST THEN, AND WHICH I HAVE READ AND YOU CLEARLY HAVE NOT!
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)
The above clearly shows the Barlas ARE MENTIONED IN THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS AND THE TIMURIDS ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS SO YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG. WHY CAN YOU NOT ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG AND WHY DO YOU KEEP ON ARGUING CHILDISHLY?
THIS MATTER IS OVER BUT I WILL NOT LET YOU KEEP SAYING WRONG THINGS AND GETTING AWAY WITH THEM AS LONG AS THIS PAGE IS OPEN. AND NONE OF THIS MATTERS ANYWAY, IT IS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF YOUR STYLE WHICH IS CLEARLY APPARENT!Jebenoyon (talk) 05:24, 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)
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.
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.
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:Edokteredited 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[1] 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
^From H:REV: “Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. … Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion.”
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)
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)
My suggestion would be to take this over to WT:MOS, where you may find editors who are more knowledgable than us. If you wish, I can close this without prejudice to reopening if that discussion gets anywhere? Alternatively, you could post a comment over there and ask a few of them to comment here. --Mdann52talk to me!15:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
All right, Edokter and I have both posted over there and directed them to the article Talk. I think you can feel free to close this for now. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:34, 12 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.
Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Stale/No volunteers - I'm not familiar with this case so if another editor cannot point you into the right direction please take a look at these other noticeboards. If everything there is unsuitable for your needs please say something on the talk page of this noticeboard and someone will point you to the right direction. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)03:45, 18 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.
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:
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 [AD 1].
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. [AD 2][AD 3]KYLE (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
I don't mean to be rude but several of the individuals involved in this debate, myself included, have been wondering what the hold up is as far as receiving input from uninvolved parties. I understand this debate is rather convoluted, but if we could have some input from uninvolved parties, that be much appreciated. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 12:25, 14 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.
Futile. One editor considers dispute resolution to be premature. Feel free to refile here or at some other dispute resolution forum if discussions stall out. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 18 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I had edited the Shudra page with proper citations. The citation was from a book by BR Ambedkar, the man who wrote the Indian constitution. That has been repeatedly reverted by a very biased and casteist Sitush. Please go through the edits and resolve this dispute.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
What I had written on Sitush's talk page to initiate a discussion has been deleted. So it does not look like he wants to have a discussion on this matter. Clearly he is not informed about this topic, just biased.
How do you think we can help?
Please look at my (Spark121212)'s edit. It is factual (the hyperlinks and citations make it self evident) and balanced. The biased version that Sitush is reverting to does not make any sense as it says Shudras who are Other Backward Class (there is a wiki entry on this) are scheduled castes/tribes. As my edit is balanced, informed by scholarship and unbiased I request you to retain my edit.
Summary of dispute by Sitush
The reporter of this dispute is new to Wikipedia and is confused about issues such as verifiability, reliable sources and neutrality. They are also confused about talk pages, as exemplified by the claim that I had deleted their comment on my talk page when in fact I had replied to it both politely and in reasonable detail. Since filing their report, they have both opened a discussion at Talk:Shudra and replied on my talk page. There is nothing to do here or, at least, not yet. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary of the dispute by Spark121212
Hi TransporterMan, would it be possible for you to arbitrate on this issue?
As you can see here I have made repeated requests to the editor not to use the offensive word "untouchable" to describe Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the man who drafted the Indian Constitution. The use of the derogatory and racist word -- which has no relevance to the article -- has been rationalized with some incredible "racist" logic.
Also, every statement I have made in the article is backed by research evidence, some of which I had provided in the citation to the article, and some of which I have provided on Talk. But instead of discussing my edit my version has been repeatedly reverted and I have been given a 3 revert warning. Since I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion request you to please intervene and resolve the matter. Thanks.
This was my edit, with citations and hyperlinks, which was reverted to a "racist" and "biased" stub with no citations.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I recently edited the pages of various cities, states, and countries to add translations in languages that are not official, but which I believe hold minority or historical status in those locales. One user in particular, Thomas.W, seems to have gone out of his way to take down my edits and explain his reasoning in messages that seem arrogant and targeted. If my edits go against Wikipedia policy, then I will gladly stop. If, however, my edits are technically permissible, your help will be greatly appreciated in resolving this conflict.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I asked the other user to stop removing my edits. After he responded that he would continue to take down my edits, I asked him to be more courteous in his messages. I am not aware as to whether or not he received this message.
How do you think we can help?
I think that you can inform both me and the other user, Thomas.W, as to whether or not my edits are permissible, and ask Thomas.W to use courtesy in his messages.
Summary of dispute by Thomas.W
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is ridiculous. Thompsonshep started adding home made word-for-word translations (probably made via Google Translate or similar) into foreign languages of the names of various cities, states and countries, adding them to those articles, languages that are of no relevance whatsoever in the articles in question. Such as a Chinese name on San Fransisco, names in Dutch, Swedish and Italian on New Jersey, in German on Kazakhstan, and so on. Edits that were promptly reverted by me and several other editors. I also issued appropriate warnings since they didn't stop, with a customised message telling them that we don't add names in other languages than English and whatever languages are official in the city, state or country in question. A message that was also added in an edit summary by another editor who reverted Thompsonshep. The last edit in that series was this redo of a previously reverted edit on New Jersey, again adding machine translations into Dutch, Swedish and Italian, but now as "native name" in the infobox. And today I noticed that they had added a machine translation into French of the article name on French and Indian War, claiming that it's called "Guerre française et indienne", when the actual name of that war in French is "Guerre de la Conquête" (as can be easily seen by following the Interwiki link). Which I pointed out to them in this message on their talk page, a message they have now removed. So it's not a content dispute, just a simple case of disruptive editing by Thompsonshep. Which is all I intend to say about it since I have more important/interesting things to do than this cr*p. Thomas.W talk13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
user talk:Thomas.W discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note.
Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. Secondly, please respect both parties and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct and issues concerning user conduct should be taken elsewhere. Attempts to discuss user conduct will not be entertained. Be sure to focus the discussion on content only.
With that in mind, let's move onto the discussion. It looks like the conflict is over the addition of article subjects in foreign languages such as the edits here: [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Concerning this dispute, it appears that WP:NCGN is the most appropriate guideline for this conflict, particularly the second section of General guidelines. Can both parties agree on this or suggest an alternative policy or guideline? KJ Discuss?06:30, 16 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.
Futile. Both editors are blocked. While one is a short block, the other is two weeks. Consider refiling here if the dispute resumes after both editors can edit again. However, since there's no clear "right" answer on this background-colorization issue, a request for comments might draw more editors into the discussion and create a consensus better that knocking heads together here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 19 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Hi. This request for a resolution refers to a war on the Turkish presidential election, 2014 page, where three candidates ran for election. The dispute originates in the infobox, where myself and another user (Maurice Fleisher) cannot agree on which colour to use for Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, an independent candidate which came second. My argument is that using red (FF0000) is the most relevant for İhsanoğlu, since almost all of the thirteen political parties that supported him use red as their primary political colour, including the main opposition party that initially nominated him (Republican People's Party). My rival insists on using the colour blue, which to my knowledge has no relevance to İhsanoğlu's candidacy or campaign and will thus only confuse readers, since the remainder of the article uses red to denote İhsanoğlu. My rival argues that blue is an acceptable colour due to the fact that it is the colour used on the Anatolia Agency (AA) (the Turkish government news agency) to denote İhsanoğlu. The problem is that my rival then doesn't take into account that the AA uses different colours for the other candidates as well, which do not match their infobox colours. I would also like to add that a huge amount of Turkish media uses red to denote İhsanoğlu in election news.
Furthermore, he argues respectably that İhsanoğlu was ultimately an independent candidate (a point which formally is correct, though practically isn't true), and as a result red is not an appropriate colour. It is true that there is no fully appropriate colour for İhsanoğlu, since he didn't use one primarily during the campaign, but since the majority of the parties which supported him use red, I believe red is probably the "most" appropriate. Although he wasn't fully an "independent" since he was asked to run for election by the Republican People's Party, I would further argue that light grey is a better option rather than blue, which has no significance at all to İhsanoğlu's campaign.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have had an extensive argument over the talk page, where I have replied to his arguments. Instead of turning the dispute into an edit war, I have decided to seek assistance here. Unfortunately, my rival has disregarded the existence of this request for an independent resolution by continuing to change colours as he sees fit despite my pleas for him to stop until the issue is resolved. This has regrettably turned into an edit war.
How do you think we can help?
I am hoping that someone with at least some knowledge of Turkish politics will be able to offer their opinion on whether they finds the colour red or blue the most appropriate to denote Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's candidacy. At the moment, I personally find the use of blue confusing and irrelevant, but my rival seems to think otherwise. I hope that someone will also be able to take a look at our argument in the talk page (section: Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour) and offer their own opinion.
Summary of dispute by Maurice Flesier
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This user Deb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deb) is vandalizing wikipedia's pages and abusing her power. She keeps on deleting people from the list of births on the May 22 page (view the history) that are LEGITIMATE entries! She is just deleting them based on whether or not she likes the people, not on whether or not they match the criteria for deletion! She keeps on doing this persistently, even after I revert the deletions she has made!
I honestly think that she should be banned from wikipedia, at least temporarily.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried posting on her talk page that she was vandalizing other people's pages.
I also tried to revert the edits she made but she comes back and reverts the edit.
How do you think we can help?
Prevent her from editing the May 22 page or ban her, at least temporarily, so she knows there are consequences to her illegitimate actions.
Summary of dispute by Deb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
May 22 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #blanket reverts
It appears, first, that no volunteer is interested in taking this case, perhaps because its complexity is a bit beyond the capability of this noticeboard. If dispute resolution is still desired, consider formal mediation. Having said that, however, I note that both editing and discussion has tapered off at the article and its talk page, so perhaps this is resolved (or at least back to stasis). — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 20 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In August 2014 Marek returned to the article and deleted more or less every single addition Skäpperöd had made two years ago. He argued, that “block quotes” should be avoided (those quotations he had asked for in Feb. 2012) and deleted not only the quotations but the whole sourced info from the article. He regards a critical view of a monument erected in post-war Poland as WP:Cherrypicking and in general anything not supporting his POV as WP:UNDUE.
I have removed the quotations from the ref section and some minor problematic parts (though WP:TRUTH wouldn't require that). However Marek, who was joined by Moloboaccount [26], continued to delete what he doesn't like
[https://en.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Attempts to discuss in detail were ignored.
How do you think we can help?
Make clear that presenting opposing views in a neutral manner isn't WP:UNDUE but an essential principle of NPOV.
Make clear that "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" is regarded WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
Summary of dispute by VolunteerMarek
Just a quick note for now: it's not true that " After an intense discussion ... a compromise was reached". Rather sheer exhaustion in the face of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and tendentious editing set in, and editors just gave up, having better things to do. There was no compromise, the article retained its problems which were not solved. The so called "stable version" is the one with all the issues. Like many articles on Wikipedia. And just to remind everyone - there's no presumption or bias in favor of status quo, hence any arguments based on "stable versions" are spurious. Indeed, such arguments go against the very spirit of Wikipedia which is supposed to be a dynamic, ever evolving, and ever improving encyclopedia.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Herkus is incorrect in stating that there was a "compromise"-the article was simply left alone.
As to part to me "not liking" certain things, indeed I don't believe that sources like Werner Conze or Theodor Schieder both of whom were dedicated Nazis propagating ideas of German supremacy, nationalism and ethnic cleansing and genocide against Poles should be used as sources for articles about Polish-German history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #blanket reverts discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
DRN participation is optional. Since the non-filing parties have indicated they will not be involving themselves here, I am closing this case. Please see WP:DR and WP:DRR if you wish to explore further dispute resolution options. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:59, 20 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I'd like to address three things here. The personal life section that was removed from the Avril article mentions these things.
1. What I added: "Avril is currently dating a South African man based in South Africa."
Explanation for why it should stay: The personal life section of almost every BLP article on Wikipedia mentions the person's significant other. I don't see any reason why Avril's case should be different.
2. What I added: "She was linked to Diamond Platnumz after appearing in the music video to his "Kesho" single, but denied dating the Tanzanian musician in January 2013."
Explanation for why it should stay: I don't believe this information is defamatory. If someone can show me how it is, I will change my mind about it.
3. What I added: "Following the release of the aforementioned single "Chokoza", compromising photos of Avril was allegedly leaked online. The photos sparked mixed reactions from critics. Avril didn't address the controversy from the onset; instead, she allowed the controversy to diminish gradually."
Explanation for why it should stay: I don't see why this information can't be kept. This particular information is not contrived. I made a mistake by adding the word "allegedly" to the statement. The word allegedly makes one to question the existence of the photos. One cannot question the existence of something that exist, can they? Once you remove the word allegedly, the statement reads: "Following the release of the aforementioned single "Chokoza", compromising photos of Avril was leaked online. The photos sparked mixed reactions from critics. Avril didn't address the controversy from the onset; instead, she allowed the controversy to diminish gradually." I don't see why this information can't be kept in the article.
Note: Everything in this section is backed by reliable sources. Nothing is unsourced.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I left several notes on the user's talk page which were ignored.
How do you think we can help?
You can help by reviewing the contents I added and checking the references.
Summary of dispute by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Avril (singer) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I make it a practice to ignore editors who post repeated demands on my talk page over short periods of time. Note that the complainant began complaining about being ignored 22 minutes after his second post to my talk page, after I'd responded to their initial post. At no point did they provide any policy-based justification for their claim that what are on their face trashy celebrity journalism pages actually meet BLP sourcing requirements. Instead, they came here and falsely claimed that I had ignored them, even though my immediate, never-substantively-answered, response is evident on my talk page. Badgering editors who make false claims in flimsy disputes are best ignored, not indulged. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
DRN participation is optional. Since you are electing not to participate, I'll close the case. Thanks for the clarification. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 20 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The Wikipedia article on John B. Taschner is up for deletion. I have edited it several times today (and backed up all of my edits with citations, references, and sources), but I am not sure that it has made the necessary impact. I would like to know where I can argue against deletion of Taschner's article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have already posted a comment on the Talk board for the article.
How do you think we can help?
I would like to make sure I am posting my comments against deleting the article in the right place. I would also like for Wikipedia to review the page: someone seems to be arbitrarily deleting my work, despite the fact that it meets criteria.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Talk:Babymetal/Archive 2#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Stale - I'm not familiar with this case so if another editor cannot point you into the right direction please take a look at these other noticeboards. If everything there is unsuitable for your needs please say something on the talk page of this noticeboard and someone will point you to the right direction. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)03:47, 18 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.
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 ([27]) 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: [28].
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: [29]. 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: [30]. (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: [31]. He said the word himself, I'm just repeating...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Babymetal/Archive 2#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)
Hi all, I am Mdann52 and I am a volenteer at the noticeboard, however this does not give me any extra powers. I have looked into this, and there appears to be disputes over several section. It will probably be easiest to try and resolve these one-by-one. --Mdann52talk to me!08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Infobox
@SilentDan297 and Moscow Connection: Lets address this first. The main issue here appears to be the number of genres to include, and the number that appear in the infobox. The main issue here is the inclusion of "Kawaii metal"; Do any reliable independent sources (ideally critics) use this genre to descride the band's music? --Mdann52talk to me!08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There were many problems in the original SilentDan297's version that I had to partially revert by force cause he wouldn't let me change anything and he fought about every minor thing... (Look at his version, the discography tables are badly formatted, there is some WP:OR like "clean vocals" in the Members section, etc.) No, I only reverted "kawaii metal" back to the infobox because several other editors wanted to include it. And because I didn't want to annoy Babymetal fans and likely future contributors to the article. But I actually think that the infobox looks neater and more "professional" with less genres. The newest discussion is here: Talk:Babymetal#Request for outline of actual problems... Basically, after I surrendered in the matter of the list of members... (Okay, not really surrendered cause SilentDan297 wanted to list the members in an original/unofficial order and delete the real names, so DAJF's version is a compromise. I still think that the Members section must include the official instruments/positions ("scream, dance", etc.) and the official all-caps capitalization, though.) So, after the list of members was changed according to DAJF's proposal, there are only a couple of minor matters left to resolve. Basically, I don't really know why SilentDan297 insisted so much in the first place. I think I reverted some of his changes absolutely fairely and any other editor would just say, "Okay, someone says it's not good, so probably what I did wasn't that good" and would just switch to other stuff. Because of such things Wikipedia doesn't worth the time spent. (It has been three weeks!) But I hope it's (almost) over now. Like, I changed some incorrect things and instead or reverting SilentDan297 expanded the article futher by adding some valuable information about the lyrics. What he did is indeed a major improvement. And many of his changes back in June were a major improvement too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice the section was titled "Infobox". In the infobox, the only issue that's left is how to list the record labels. It's being discussed here:
The infobox as far as I'm aware of is meant to contain simple and generalised information, and the template article suggests that the genres to be generalised also so to simplify this I removed any unofficial genres and sub-genres since they are all mentioned in the articles "Musical characteristics and lyrics" section, while there was a dispute around the removal of such genres an agreement was made to do so so long as the three primary genres where referenced which isn't against the template's guidelines. The main issue here now is as Moscow Connection says the labels mentioned here, the minor edit I did previously here was the removal of a small note: "(Both are sub-labels of Toy's Factory)" which looked very out of place and again was against the template's guidelines, we have suggested several different compromises but a final agreement is yet to come from this. SilentDan (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You are repeating the same thing all over again. I can't repeat everything all over again too as if it were something new. Just read this:
In short, the information is essential for understanding on which label they are actually on and you just want to make the infobox useless to 99.999% of readers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the information in the infobox is meant to convey a general overview, so therefore I feel that only the main genres should be included, with more specif ones mentioned later in the article. Would this be a suitable compromise? --Mdann52talk to me!15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52: The genre's have already been discussed and that is the current format now, with general ones in the infobox and the specific ones in the article itself, the main issue right now is with the labels, currently being discussed where Moscow Connection linked before in his previous comment. SilentDan (talk) 22:32, 11 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.
Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group
Futile. One side of the dispute, represented by the IP editor, has not chosen to participate. Moreover, at the very bottom this may also be more of a conduct issue than a content issue and there appears to be an ongoing effort to address it in that manner. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 22 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Re. "... I have to believe that the IP also uses this account: Nitramrekcap" (The Banner): updated the list of involved parties above accordingly. Will post notification at user talk:Nitramrekcap.
That Nitramrekcap identifies as "Martin" ([42]) is consistent with the IP's self-identification, at least.
Nitramrekcap's user contributions and (deleted) talk page content show:
started editing 2005
No contributions in the period 2010-2013
last edit April 2014
Similar editing patterns, e.g. posting a "reference" in the edit summary instead of in the article [43]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not too hopeful that this process will work. For a long, long time I have tried to persuade the IP self-identified as "Martin" to give proper sources and be civil. But he seems to have more problems with my nationality and the place where I live than care about the needs of the encyclopaedia. See here for a sample. Mr. martin is also claiming to be ("the 'Ascension Parish Burial Ground' expert"). He must show a considerable change in attitude before this is going to work.
By the way, I have to believe that the IP also uses this account: Nitramrekcap.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have disputed the neutrality of a section at LGBT rights in Croatia, I gave my comments, trying to be helpful and constructive, the other editor assumed ownership of the article, did not assume good faith and attacked me, calling me "homophobic".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion.
How do you think we can help?
By putting in a third, neutral opinion about my changes and propositions for change into the article, and discussing the points brought in by the other editor.
Summary of dispute by 11raccoon1
The user Plarem is obviously not happy with LGBT rights in general. He tried to change Zagreb Pride and Split Pride headlines into just Zagreb and Split, and claims the word pride is a LGBT propaganda, and a "liberal" word. Furthermore, he also changed the headline that says "LGBT Prides and other marches" to "Promotion of LGBT issues", claiming that it was one sided and liberal. He also stated that certain citations are needed, even though they already exist at the end of the paragraph "Living condition."
In the introduction he added completely new bit where he talks how same-sex marriage in Croatia is not legal because of the Catholic church. Croatia is a secular country where government and the parliament are responsible for creating new laws. Not the Church. The user also claims that article needs opposition to LGBT rights to make it neutral. I don't understand what sort of opposition does he have in mind? The article talks about opposition to LGBT rights from the outset and throughout. So what is the problem?
The user created the pie chart, using the word. "extremely." The source says people who oppose same-sex marriage feel strongly about it. They are not extremely against, but strongly.
He also insists that Croatian Constitution bans same-sex marriage. Croatian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And that is de jure. The user claims same-sex marriages are banned. It is true that it is not possible to have them, but what I care is what the law says. And that is what I put on Wikipedia. I do not add my personal interpretations of any law. Myself and other people have been working hard on this article, and it seems sad to let somebody destroy it. I am responsible for most of it, and am very happy when people add things, or correct mine if it's constructive. But this is just pointless what the user Plarem is doing. He also said that I should get over the fact "gay propaganda" is not acceptable. I claim that this article is neutral and based on facts. Personal interpretations are not wanted, just like in any other article. I believe this user is doing this as a result of disagreeing with LGBT rights.11raccoon1 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
1) In regard to constitutional marriage amendment.
While primary source (i.e constitution itself) does not say literally same-sex marriage is banned, the amendment is interpreted in this way by secondary sources. According to Wikipedia policies, the articles should not be based solely on primary sources, reliable secondary sources also should be taken into account. I don't see nothing wrong with Plaren's edits in this area, as long as they are kept in neutral manner.
2) In regard to Public promotion of LGBT issues term.
The term is certainly not neutral. I see this as an attempt to insert personal views to the article. Has anyone heard of this term before? This could qualify as OR. I don't see nothing wrong with the term of Gay Pride or Pride Parade, because these are names used by the organizers. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
However, on the other hand, I don't see the term 'LGBT propaganda' as anything wrong, it is often used, but I was told that it was against WP:NPOV, so I came up with that as a neutral alternative. – Plarem(Usertalk)21:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
3) In regard to the leading section.
In general, I'm ok with expansion of the leading section. In my opinion it's not too big and summarizes (at least some) key points of the article. As for the grammar, I'm not expert, and my English is not perfect. So no comment... Ron 1987 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am a volunteer here at the DRN. Welcome. Let me start of by requesting that all editors refrain from further edit warring on the article. That must stop.
My first question is: Why is "Public promotion of LGBT issues" considered non neutral and why do you feel that is original research. It was a header title of a section or subsection not a reference to a group, subject/figure or situation requiring a reference. So lets be clear with that. The word "propaganda" is indeed non neutral.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a much difference between promotion and propaganda. These events are called Pride parades, also on Wikipedia. The Wiki article about it has that name, see Pride parade. I don't see any reason to not to use that name in other articles. He tried similar maneuvers in other articles see [46], [47], [48], [49]Ron 1987 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a part of the dispute discussion
Hey Mark, there's a thread on WP:ANEW as well. If it were up to me--but it isn't since I rewrote the lead--raccoon here would have been blocked for edit warring already. The thread was filed by the (as far as I know) uninvolved CombatWombat42. That's not to say anything about which one of these is wrong, but raccoon is certainly acting wrongly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, getting back to this...my point, the term propaganda is derogatory and should never be used as an encyclopedic description of Promoting LGBT rights. However, that is not even the case here, as this is not about an editor changing a single word like promotion to propaganda. This is a situation where the term "Pride" is being excluded all together for the use of the of a phrase that includes "promotion" and that is unacceptable for the simple reason that it is not an alternative to the definition of a "Pride" event. These are festivals, celebrations and parades that make use of the word, "Pride" the title. it is that simple. The issue here is an editor that has taken it upon themselves to begin what really does look like a campaign to remove terms they "Just don't like" across a wide swath of articles. So, the answer to my question is, "Public promotion of LGBT issues" is considered non neutral when it replaces "Gay/LGBT Pride" because it attempts to define "celebration" as "promotion".
Honestly....this is a clear attempt to frame the verbiage in these articles to fit Russian law against "Gay propaganda" (as is evidenced by the editors first attempt at using the word "propaganda") and seems pretty clear to me. As such, this looks painfully political in nature and the very worst kind of POV. I will say this, when using the term "Pride" we should attempt to qualify its meaning in the section it is used, as a title to a celebration, festival or parade. The reason these celebrations are called "Pride" is because of the nature of the event and its origins as a way to counter the violence of the Stonewall riots where the police of New York City attempted to harass and beat gay men at a local gay bar as well as a counter to the perception that being gay was something to be ashamed of but, instead to be "proud" of. Are Gay Pride parades promotion? No, they are just what they claim to be...a celebration. Plarem attempts to make this a purely promotional event, which it is not.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Building on the sample provided above, I have taken a further look through recent edits by Plarem(talk·contribs·logs·block log) and there is significant evidence of disrupting the Encyclopaedia to prove a point, by inserting "public promotion of LGBT issues" into articles, along with starting multiple discussions arguing that the common term "Pride Parade" is "liberally biased" and incidents of deliberately inflammatory language. At the time of writing not all these changes had been repaired by other editors, presumably as they are so extensive. Plarem appears unwilling or unable to accept the views of multiple other contributors or the current consensus view that "Pride Parade" is (as defined as per the article Pride Parade) a celebration of gay culture, not intended as promotion, propaganda or "homopropaganda"[50], the latter being a neologism that Plarem inserted into an article. Plarem's behaviour is not acceptable, their recent actions appear more than sufficient in terms of incivility, damage and disruption for a block and/or a topic ban.
In support of the above statement, please review the following diffs which are an incomplete sample of Plarem's edits on LGBT related articles over the last 2 days.
2014-08-22 22:54 LGBT_rights_in_Croatia - non-civil edit comment: "That's what the lead is for, dumbass"
2014-08-22 19:09 Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Croatia - personal attack "I also think he should go back to school, do an English language course, or just shut up."
2014-08-22 17:01 LGBT rights in Poland describing an artwork as homopropoganda, an apparent transliteration from a Polish word based on a single op-ed website article without offering a balance of viewpoints, as even expressed in the original op-ed piece.
My apologies for turning this into a wall of evidence, but I would like to establish that the pattern of problematic edits goes further than the last 2 days, and so have looked into the previous month. The following edits demonstrate tendentious editing and many reverts of the work of other editors in good standing in order to establish both a neologism (homopropaganda, which many are likely to consider highly controversial) and continuously inserting "LGBT propaganda" into articles, as can be seen above this was later adapted to inserting "LGBT promotion" and removing "Pride" or "LGBT movement".
2014-08-12 13:36 LGBT rights in Poland changing "LGBT movement" to "LGBT propaganda"
2014-07-30 12:06 Sandbox to create a draft of "LGBT propaganda / homopropaganda / homosexual propaganda"
My recommendation is that a topic ban is needed to avoid further disruption to the encyclopaedia and to give Plarem time to reconsider their inappropriate long term disruptive behaviour. If that cannot be done on DRN, I would ask an admin consider taking this forward on behalf of other concerned editors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Fæ, that's pretty impressive. I propose that we let Plarem respond, and then take it from there. I see an AN thread coming up where a topic ban is proposed. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for adding this evidence to the DRN. Changing Wikipedia articles so that the LGBT movement is re-titled as "LGBT terrorism" I find repugnant and critically damaging to Wikipedia's neutrality. Though articles should represent all significant views, they must be presented neutrally and given an appropriate weight. At this point, I think any experienced admin can draw sensible conclusions from the pattern we find here. --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Since the DRN began first I suggest we keep this request open for 24 hours to allow the editor to respond. Should there be no reply within the 24 hr period, I suggest we close this DRN filing as no content dispute, as there is clear consensus on how to handle the text descriptions of "Gay/LGBT Pride" events.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:23, 23 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.
Mormon folklore
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Premature - There is almost no talk page discussion, which is required by this noticeboard. Please discuss further on the article's talk page. If you cannot come to a resolution, please file another request. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)01:04, 25 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.
Mormon Folklore is stated that it can be events or beliefs that may be true but not doctrine, however, much of the article is laced with statements, subjects, or beliefs that are actual doctrine of the church and not folklore. This article holds many items that are believed to be of a sacred nature and appear to be an attempt at making the LDS church look ridiculous in their beliefs as opposed to trying to present factual data. Just because someone has a source does not make it factual. Many of the sources quoted are writings from professed antagonists of the church and do not represent the church in the appropriate light. I believe that most of this article is useless in giving someone trying to truly understand that topic and is not affiliated with the church. Mormon folklore is being presented as the term used by those outside the church to describe the church's beliefs. That is an incorrect description. The quote taken from President Harold B. Lee was to address actual folklore or untrue stories being circulated within the church. It was not used to condemn true stories that are circulated among church members. However, this quote is being used to give a basis of contradicting many beliefs of the LDS church but is not used in a way that would further clarify the topic of "Mormon Folklore." It does nothing more that dilute and confuse the subject and the overall content makes for a very ridiculous misrepresentation of facts. The statement is taken out of context in order to mislead and misrepresent facts. For example, the story of Del Parson's painting is a story that is told among members but is not based in fact. This is "Mormon Folklore." These types of stories are what President Lee was referring to. However, the statement regarding the garments worn by endowed members is actual doctrine of the church taught at all levels. It is not a belief that is not endorsed by the church, it is actual doctrine and sacred doctrine at that.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Attempted to discuss in talk page without success as there is no argument against my presentation of facts that the article is deceitful and is misrepresenting facts by trying to represent actual church doctrine and beliefs, as stated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as "Folklore".Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, etc. are all Tall Tales or Folklore.This is the light that actual doctrine of the church is being represented.Wikipedia uses terms tall tales and legends to describe folklore
How do you think we can help?
Check the references. The one for garments for example is a Washington Post article that the writer uses the term Mormon Lore to describe the belief about the garment. There is no research as to whether it is actual doctrine of the church or not. Because of this, apparently the doctrine is Folklore because one writer called it "Lore" without any research into the matter other than some gossip or as he states, information from anti-Mormons.
this is a POV statement; all have been discussed in sources as folklore, regardless as to whether they are actually believed by some or all members)
Please see example of "sources" as shown above.
Summary of dispute by Good Olfactory
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Comment. (I'm not sure why we're here rather than the talk page, but anyway ...) I think that User:Rwsammons just misunderstands how the article (and the sources cited in the article) use the term "folklore". It does not mean that the thing is untrue or not actually believed or taught by Mormon adherents. The boundary between what is "Mormon folklore" and what is "true Mormon doctrine" is fuzzy—there is no bright line separating one from the other, and along this border there is no doubt significant overlap, and it definitely depends on the observer or the adherent. An example of the misunderstanding of this term can be seen in edits such as this one: I find this edit and ones like it to have WP:NPOV issues. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Mormon folklore discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I am MrScorch6200, the DRN coordinator. I am neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but I would like to note that I notified User:Good Olfactory of this thread. Also, it doesn't look like this dispute has much talk page discussion, so it is subject to a speedy-close. Cheers! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)00:55, 25 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.
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.
There is dispute over this section. Homebirth info is added and sourced, kirin reverts. The information had been there for years. Since Kirin started editing the info has been deemed unneccessary and repeatedly removed.
The homebirths were talked about ad nauseum. They were shown on the show. The eldest daughters jana,jill,jessa are training in midwifery. Anna --who married into the family-- is for homebirths and had one. Michelle gives speeches about it, interviews about it. Jill just announced she is pregnant and said she wants a home birth because it is more comfortable.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I deleted the table since we disagreed on content. Kirin restored it. Then Kirin accused me of sockpuppeting--I did not--, got her friend to block me. another editor even told Kirin that Kirin acted inappropriately. Kirin and that admin's overacting still hasnt been addressed. Kirin is exerting control of the article when we are all here to edit.
Here is where the chart has been previously discussed
Tell kirin to stop acting as if it is kirin's article. The information is sourced and factual. The information had been in the article/chart for years. Sources have been added(kirin's original reason for deleting the info). We are all trying to make the article better afterall. On my end, I think i did explain my edits and did try to discuss on the talk page. But if you are able to offer me advice to better my edits please do.
Summary of dispute by Kirin13
First, the false accusation: My "friend" who blocked IP for sockpuppetry (among other issues) was DeltaQuad, with whom, I don't recall ever interacting with before (or after) this issue. IP's statement that "got her friend to block me" implies DQ is abusing his admin and checkuser powers, which are awfully strong accusations. Besides DQ, at least five other admin's reviewed the case and declined IP's justifications. For further info, please see: 1, 2, 3.
Besides myself & the IP, two other users have joined the discussion. One is nuetral and the other, Metheglyn, supports exclusion - diff. No one except IP1 and IP2 (whom admins judged to be same person) have supported inclusion - see talk page.
Two of five notes IP is arguing to add are still unsourced after repeated claims that everything is sourced - diff.
Multiple times compromises were offered to include this info in other sections and explained why this structured table was not a good place for this info. E.g. see 1, 2, 3, 4.
IP's above argument for inclusion are claims that IP has never sourced. To my knowledge, the 'facts' that these women are training to be midwives and that the family are big homebirth advocates have never been in the article. Yet IP insists on using these 'important facts' as justification to make additions to table that say neither of these 'facts'. If IP has reliable sources (preferable secondary, so we know it's important) for midwives/homebirth advocates facts, then these facts can be added to the appropriate sections, but this is all irrelevant to the edits in question, since IP has never tried to include this info.
This is where we disagree. YOU say it does not go in the table. Why is what you say the answer? The information was in the table for quite some time--since 2009 february-- until you Kirin decided to claim ownership of the article. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
False accusation is what you did when saying I have multiple accounts. You planted the seed. Just because editors from the same state edit doesn't mean they are socks. Delta still has not told me what checkuser said to prove I have multiple accounts. If Delta were being an admin fine, act like an admin. The responses were intense as if Delta had a personal interest as if to support a friend. If I have this wrong let me know.
The other users are Musdan and Metheglyn . Musdan said you were wrong in how you went about changes to the article, but you ignore this, and that I am not a sock. You did not like that Musdan disagreed and you sought out another editor/admin who did agree. Metheglyn had initially had no preference but now says leave it out. Was that an independent decision or coercion from you ?
The information is sourced. I will look for the edit. If i cant find it perhaps i was editing and when I hit save you had reverted so that cancelled the edit.
This is not a compromise. This is you telling me you dont want the info in the table and if I want it in the article to put it in the body. That is you directing me, that is not compromise. Further, did you make an edit incorporating the info in the body? No you didnot. I mdid wrote on the discussion page but you would not discuss. It was your way or no way. It still is that way. I removed the section--throughout wikipedia controversial sections are removed until an agreement is made--but you put it back in.
No need for facts in parentheses as if it is made up. It is factual, it is true. They have shared pictures of themselves as midwives, given interviews, showin it on the show. Here are some examples
Kkj11210 has asked user issues not to be discussed, but since you insist on discussing them, I will reply. If anyone planted the seed, it was you. I filed the SPI based primarily on behavioral evidence and secondarily on geolocation. As I said above, to my recollection I have never spoken to DeltaQuad outside of discussion of this SPI. So calling DQ my friend is your accusation saying he's abusing his admin and checkuser powers. At least six different admins reviewed this case – none sided with you.
Musdan77 has never agreed with you and has remained neutral throughout the discussion. His comment was that neither of us should be edit-warring not that you're right. Metheglyn initial opinion before you came to the page was neutral. However, since you're appearance, Metheglyn has now twice stated support for exclusion of this info from the table. Don't accuse others of coercion without any evidence. I filed the SPI before Musdan77 comment, so "you sought out another editor/admin who did agree" is utterly false.
You have never provided sources for two of the five notes. Many times you had multiple hours before any revert, so don't accuse me for your failure to provide the sources.
It is a compromise - you get the info you want in the article. You however don't want any compromises because you want only where you want it. You've made no attempts at any compromises. Furthermore, don't accuse me of not discussing it on the talk page, because I've done plenty of discussing and I given plenty more reasons then you have. Btw, I was not the one who initially removed this info, so get your facts straight. Don't accuse me of WP:OWN when you you're acting like it's your way or no table way. You say when something is controversial then it should be removed – the entire table is not controversial, so you deleting the entire table is more than overkill. The only info that is controversial is the notes you want to include.
It's not 'paratheses', it's single quotes. If it's facts then why were no sources provided. However, once again, "this is all irrelevant to the edits in question, since IP has never tried to include this info".
I planted no seed. You never liked my edits. You immediately challenged me and then delta got involved. I did not say musdan agreed. I said musdan said i was not socking, you did not like this, and got another admin/editor.
Musdan also said you were prcoceeding wrong by not discussing, but you ignored that.
I gave sources, you said they were not good. Basically nothing is good unless you add it.
It is not a compromise as you are determine what edits stay and where they stay. You do not discuss. Of course in you opinion you have given plenty more reasons. You don't see any other way but your own. I have accused you of WP:OWN and will continue to because the edit history proves so. You are the one who is saying how the table must be , what goes in and doesn't. Just recently you removed another editors addition of jill's pregnancy from the chart and--no surprise--moved it to where you wanted. That is another example of WP:OWN. And of course, I am controversial, not you kirin.
This is bull and you know it. The first few paragraphs of the article are not sourced but you dont takeout that info.
You used parentheses to emphasis/ to single out/ to draw attention to the information as if it were not true. It is fact. Jana Duggar, Jill Duggar and rest are training to be midwives. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk: 19 Kids and Counting
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. Secondly, please respect both parties and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct and issues concerning user conduct should be taken elsewhere. Attempts to discuss user conduct will not be entertained. Be sure to focus the discussion on content only to reach consensus.
With that, let us move onto the conflict. I believe that there are two main problems. The first question is whether there are reliable sources for the information. The second is, assuming that there are adequate sources, how the information should be incorporated into the article. Since the second question is moot if the first question is not resolved, let's cover the sourcing first. User:65.205.13.26, do you have any sources to support the information that you are trying to include? KJ Discuss?10:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
KJ Hello. Thank You for you help with 19K&C article. Homebirths were discussed on numerous episodes of the show. Please give me sometime to find the specific episodes. Written sources are : -NBC's today show interview, -ABC's GMA show interview, -various interviews with homebirth organisations
-their books The Duggars; 20 And Counting , - book A Love That Multiplies
For the record, I am not involved with any of these users and only dealt with them through administrative and checkuser actions, and I have no involvement in this dispute, and do not wish to be involved. -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)19:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Kirin writes then Delta comes immediately after. Yet they do no know each other? Hmmm Since you are here kirin, or should I say Delta, what did check user say ?65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll comment on the sources that URL's were provided for:
duggarsblog.blogspot.com is an unofficial blog by two amateur writers – this is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
christianpost.com looks like an acceptable source for which children were born by c-section.
Midwife sources are irrelevant since this info has never been added to article.
crossmap.com article seems to be completely unrelated to homebirths or midwife training.
Side note: in general, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (e.g. christianpost.com article) vs. primary sources (e.g. the tv episodes). So looking for the specific tv episodes is unnecessary unless there is no secondary sources.
The sources for the c-section weren't in question (though no reliable sources for the homebirths of Jinger & Joseph have been provided here which are 2/5 notes he's trying to add). The question has always been where. IP believes it should be in the table or the entire table should be deleted. I believe it doesn't belong in table but can be added in several areas where there are paragraphs about the family history and show plot. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The source is not for the c section. If you read the article in it Michelle says she had homebirths for jinger and josiah. duggarsblog is sanctioned by the duggar family. They have given multiple interviews to teh blog owners ellie/lily and invited ellie/lily to jill's wedding. Again if christianpost was read it says info on homebirths; numerous homebirths. Midwife sources are not irrelevant. Crossmap you are right about; that source is for other info for the article. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing homebirths
Before continuing, both users be noted that collapsing the conversations mean that the conversations are out of the scope of the discussion and should not be replied to or considered. If the users wish to continue accusations of user conduct, take it somewhere else. If the discussion continue to center on user conduct, this discussion may be closed. Also, please don't edit the previous comments, even if they are your own and you're simply adding information to them. Use the strikeout <s> </s> Wiki markup to mark the comment and add a new comment.
With that, let's move on. User 65, the only source I can see to classify a birth as a homebirth or not is the duggarsblog article (other articles mention homebirths, but not specific ones). Is this correct? And could you demonstrate how the duggarsblog goes beyond WP:SPS? KJ Discuss?01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My 17:14, 22 August 2014 65.205.13.26 (talk)comment is a reply to Kirin's 3:59, 22 August commment, which is not collapsed. Am I not allowed to reply to those issues and accusations Kirin said ?
Christianpost says Michelle and husband Jim Bob has had numerous homebirths. In the books 'A Love That Multiplies' and 'The Duggars' Michelle discussed the specific homebirths. On the TLC show she said she had homebirths and for which children when being interviewed. From the books and the tv show is where ellie/lily got the information that jinger/joseph were homebirths. In addition Michelle was interviewed by ellie/lily and tolf them this.
Duggarsblog is sanctioned by the Duggar Family that is why I feel it is beyond WPSPS.
User Kirin, do you disagree that the sources mentioned (books, blog, interviews, pictures) are adequate as sources, secondary or primary, for the homebirths? KJ Discuss?05:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Blog cannot be used. Reading WP:BLOGS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." He's failed to give any citation for any of the other information. I'm not going to search the several hundred pages of the books or watch the 100+ episodes. If he claims it's there, he must be able to provide an actual citation. Unless he's spoken with Ellie/Lily, he cannot say where they got their info, but that's irrelevant since the blog cannot be used. Kirin13 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the blog for now, common practice in Wikipedia when an editor cannot access the book is to WP:AGF and assume that the material is included in the book that is being sourced, unless there is material that directly contradicts it. With that, is it agreeable that the material can be sourced? User 65, it will still be better if you can give the exact quotes/location of the material, if possible. KJ Discuss?10:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not failed to give sources, you Kirin just wont accept them. The blog is sanctioned by the family and the family gives it exclusives, pictures, and interviews. The blog needs to be used. When promoting the books on various television shows Michelle said so. She didnt give the pages because she of course wanted the book to be bought. When promoting her show in general she talked about homebirth. Back when she was still able to get pregnant she discussed past pregnancies and births adn this is when she said that jinger joe were homebirths. It was when Anna was pregnant the second time. The daughters did as well on their book tour earlier this year in spring 2014 for 'growing up duggar'; as well as when they were promoting the show. Once again you are being ridiculous. No one has said you have to read pages or rewatch all episodes. Currently in the article the tevelsion show (even going back to when it was jsut specials) are given as sources for info--but not a specif season, episode, airdate--and you are not contesting that.. You are being ridiculous. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Right now, there seems to be two sub-issues, the problem of providing sources in general and the question of using blogs as a reliable source. I think we can all agree that User 65 has the WP:BURDEN to prove the source if the user wishes to add (or re-add) the information to the article. The fact that there were homebirths is established by the Christianpost article and the interviews that she has given. However, specific information on the homebirths only come from the blog, which has been objected to on grounds of WP:BLOGS which states: 'Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.' Furthermore, WP:BLPSPS states: 'Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.' User 65, please be noted that the standard of verification of adding biographical information on Wikipedia is extremely high. The burden is on you to demonstrate how this blog is considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards (by giving preceding consensus or policy/guidelines), or provide another source with adequate data to locate the information in the book (or other source). KJ Discuss?02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kirin13: Since the other editor was blocked, I'm going to close this DR/N case in 24 hours if no one else comments on this case. Are there any loose ends you want to tie up? KJ Discuss?04:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no point to continue this DR/N right now since IP can't reply (and no one else is arguing for this addition). However, we might be back in a month, if IP decides to continue this discussion – like he did after his previous three-week absence.
I am curious, of your opinion/next step, assuming all info can be sourced. I'm still against it being in the table. Between the books, 100+ episodes, news articles, etc. a lot of minute details can be sourced, that doesn't mean that they should be included in Wikipedia. In particular, info only found in primary sources tells me that it's not really important, otherwise there would've been secondary sources. Going to article, there are two sections discussing family history/values/etc. The table, at current state, gives the names, ages, and other relations for the individuals. Adding what kind of birth the individuals had seems like an absurd bit of trivia in comparison.
@Kirin13: If User 65 returns and wishes to re-open the DRN discussion, then that's up to the user to decide. Regarding the information, a consensus whether it's WP:FANCRUFT or not is needed. Assuming there is consensus, WP:WHENTABLE states that 'Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context.' So, it should be considered whether the information should be explained using context and prose, or presented without any connotation. I really have no inclination either way. KJ Discuss?09:49, 25 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.
Discussion has not yet been extensive enough to warrent coming here. As one party has declined to participate here at the current moment, there is nothing more to do here. --Mdann52talk to me!06:53, 27 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Which one would better to build upon to improve the article?
Summary of dispute by AussieLegend
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Amish Mafia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
24-hour closing notice: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. I'd just note that AussieLegend was given notice of this filing, but removed the notice from his talk page with the edit comment "Unnecessary," and continued commenting at the article talk page. I would presume this to mean that he does not care to participate here, as is his right since participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary. This case will be closed if he does not choose to give an opening statement by 19:30 hours UTC on 27 August 2014. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the notice at the top of this page says "editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page" and that has not happened. The discussion at Talk:Amish Mafia had only been open for 30 hours and only 6 posts had been made before BP OMowe chose to move onto DRN, which he did straight after his last post there and befor I had a chance to reply. That really is too early for DRN. As hinted at by TransporterMan, I'm prepared to continue discussing at the talk page but I don't see any need to come here yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:44, 26 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.
Talk:Bob Avakian
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
There are issues of objectivity in this article. A single editor essentially has turned the entire article into his own pet project. Any edits done by other editors tend to be undone. The issue is in regards to the articles neutral point of view, appropriate usage of external links, and appropriate links for critical opinions of the subject.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
There has been a lengthy discussion in the Talk section about what is appropriate and inappropriate. But in the end, no matter what changes have been made by other editors, EnRealidad reverts it back to his own original take on the article.
How do you think we can help?
We need help determining what is appropriate for a neutral or objective point of view in the case of this controversial biography of a living person.
Summary of dispute by EnRealidad
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Although xcuref1endx says the dispute is over a neutral or objective point of view of the contents of this Wiki page, the source of the dispute appears to be xcuref1endx's personal dislike for and dismissal of Avakian (the subject of the biography). He/she has consistently edited the site for more than three years in a way to promote his/her own opinion of Avakian. I have had to consistently revert or re-edit xfend1cure's changes because they distort Avakian's actual views and instead insert xfend1cure's views of the matter in question.
For example, look at the discussion on the Talk page under headings "Correcting prior edits to accurately reflect views of subject" (begun 11-29-11) through "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (4-19-12). I carefully documented each revision or re-edit to explain why I felt xcure1fendx's changes had distorted Avakian's views in favor of his/her own, clarifying what Avakian has actually said or written. One way xcuref1endx's edits changed the content and meaning was to remove citations or links to Avakian's works documenting his views, making it impossible for a reader to recognize the distortions.
The same is true of the ongoing dispute over the "critical opinions" section of the page. The "Bob Avakian" page has been up for a number of years. In 2009, after many editors complained about the quality of the entry, I put up a complete rewrite. As I explained at the time, this was based on lengthy study of Avakian and of the Revolutionary Communist Party, the organization he leads. I kept the "critical opinions" subsection that had previously existed because I felt at least the main entries there contained material that clarified the differences between Avakian's views and those of other political forces.
Xcuref1endx's recent additions to "critical opinions", however, can I think be fairly characterized as opportunities for the pieces' respective authors to pour out their personal dislike for Avakian without any attempt to actually engage the content of his ideas and positions. That frankly doesn't add anything relevant, and I think cuts against the purpose of an objective Wiki article.
Finally, I'd suggest that the history of xcuref1endx's edits reveals that they come from his/her own personal dislike for Avakian. Xcuref1endx only edits to the Wiki site for over three years have been to the Avakian page except a couple to one other site. Many of the edits and deletions have been explained by with comments like "Avakians work is largely only read by his followers" or "He's a minor douche who happens to be the center of a cult of personality". Even if true (which I'd argue is quite far from the reality of the situation), (a) I find it ironic that xcuref1endx has contributed nothing to Wiki for three years except over 100 edits to the article (and many more to the Talk page) and (b) I do not see how xcuref1endx's personal disagreements with Avakian's philosophical or political views has any place in the content of a Wiki page. The page is about Avakian, not xcuref1endx.
Enrealidad summary basically describes the main theme of issues surrounding Avakian's biography. However, he largely ignores the arguments established in the 'talk' section, not just by me, but by others, about the issue of neutrality and non-point of view, and immediately goes straight to questioning the edits that I made not by the content itself, but by motives he suspects me of harboring. "The minor douche" comment was not made by me, so I do not know why he attributes that to me, however, I have stated that Avakian's work is largely read only by his followers, but this was stated in the talk section, not in the actual article. This was stated because precisely of the style that EnRealidad insists upon for the main article. It has been noted over and over in the Talk section how the article does read like a RCP propaganda piece, often suggesting that Avakian's work is widely contended and engaged with by those outside of RCP circles. There is no proof of this, his work is not submitted to peer review, nor can one find extensive articles or editorials that engage with Avakian's work. Almost every note or citation in the article is from Avakian himself or the RCP, which are primary sources. Peppered throughout the article are external links to the RCP magazine, sometimes appearing to have no other purpose other than using the Avakian wikipedia page as an advertising tool for Avakian and the RCP rather than providing an objective perspective of Avakian. The few articles that do, usually from defunct or eccentric radical periodicals that do critically examine Avakian are immediately under suspicion by Enrealided, hence the controversy that brought us here now.
It seems that the controversy surrounding the neutrality of the argument stems between two different ideas of what 'neutrality' actually means. Enrealidad is approaching this term as understanding Avakian through Avakian's own words. That to objectively understand Avakian we need to look at what Avakian has presented to us in his writing or speeches. However, my perspective, I feel evidenced through my edits, is that using Avakian to describe Avakian does not comport with encyclopedia standards, and that external opinions matter in understanding the objective influences, perspectives, and ideas of a living individual.
Oddly, about the history of my edits that enrealidad brought up... I am not certain as to what that says about the content of my edits, because equally, the history of enrealidad's edits are exactly the same for the past x amount of years. It appears that his history suggests that he is taking careful effort to sustain a certain image of the RCP in wikipedia articles. If my intentions are to be considered suspicious, then there should be no reason as to why enrealidad should not be subjected to the same suspicion using his rationale. Others have made edits similar to mine that enrealidad have done away with. We are at loggerheads here, hence the necessity of a third party stepping in.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I write here because I'm invited, but my role in all this is very small. On April 15, in my wanderings, I removed a trivial detail (which was supported only by Avakian's uncertain memory), changed a couple of external links to point more directly to content and thus save the reader some clicks, and shortened a citation for a book that is cited more fully elsewhere on the page. On April 17, EnRealidad undid these changes. When I asked why, the ensuing bickering had no obvious relation to my question. I probably unwatched within a week. Trying to understand people who take the RCP seriously (as friends or foes) would be too much like work. —Tamfang (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Bob Avakian discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I am Icarosaurvus, a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. First, I would like to direct all concerned to the Wikipedia page on Ownership. If a new editor provides a well-sourced edit, one cannot remove it simply because one dislikes it. This is related to one of Wikipedia's five pillars, in fact. To quote it "Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed."
Further, Wikipedia generally discourages relying too heavily on primary sources, as these can quite easily be biased. (See the Wikipedia page on verifiability, specifically the section on primary sources.) While it's okay to have some, the article in question does indeed seem to rely awfully heavily on them, and it's good of other users to try to add in some secondary sources.
Finally, Wikipedia is meant to be from a Neutral point of view, so adding criticisms of Mr. Avakian to the article is an excellent idea, as it does sound fairly one sided at this time.
I hope I've been of some help!
Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
24 hr closing notice: This case was filed 16 days ago. Unless a DRN volunteer begins moderation very soon. It will need to be closed as unresolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Keithbob, I have begun working on moderating this dispute. I am listed in the Volunteer list thing, and in fact posted just above you. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.