This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Participants have agreed to the following proposal; If an author's statement is generally considered reliable, and a particular statement of his/her doesn't have supporting multiple reliable sources, then it can/should be attributed to its author. It is not necessary to attribute a opinion piece to multiple authors. For something to be established as fact (be it academic consensus, evangelical scholars' consensus or any consensus), multiple reliable sources are required. Thanks for all of your cooperation to solve this dispute peacefully and for your patience. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. GBRV has pampered (softened) WP:RS/AC claims about the consensus among modern Bible scholars. He denies the application of WP:RS/AC based upon such original research claims that Catholic scholars cannot see contradictions inside the Bible or that Bible historians should aim to harmonize biblical contradictions since supposedly other historians do that with eyewitness accounts (this is the GBRV recipe of what Bible scholars should do for a living). @ StAnselm: You did not address all the sources, e.g. some sources have been weeded out (cherry-picked) at [1] under the motto "This is just a restatement of the same thing, again as a Wikipedia fact rather than an opinion; with a more extreme source added claiming that even Catholics supposedly reject their own sacred text (!)" Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC) @ StAnselm: In the end the text itself (without considering the references) is not so bad, I can agree with the current formulation. The problem is that weeding out the other sources makes the consensus claim shallow or unsupported. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) The consensus claim is applied to modern scholars. Modern is in this context in opposition with fundamentalist and/or traditional. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I would not object to changing "modern scholars" to "critical scholars". Further, I see that the sources verify two different claims: consensus of modern/critical scholars and the existence of contradictions. Maybe those two claims got conflated and we should separate them. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have reverted to the stable version of the article, but I don't want to get involved in an edit war. How do you think we can help? Make editors understand that obeying WP:RS/AC is not optional. They cannot say that what is taught as fact in most major universities should be presented inside Wikipedia as mere opinion. I do admit that fundamentalist Bible scholars beg to differ from what is taught in most major universities, but that can be rendered as a dissenting (minority) view. The lion's share should go to the academic consensus. Summary of dispute by GBRVPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Firstly, the thing that Tgeorgescu is calling an "edit war" was a moderate number of small changes spread thinly over a period of several weeks. The term "edit war" generally refers to rapid and copious changes each day. If every handful of changes over several weeks would trigger a dispute resolution request, you'd be deluged with thousands of requests. He also ignored my comments on the talk page for over a week, then filed a dispute resolution request once he finally did respond. This is therefore an improper use of such a request, and seems designed to prevent other people from even making routine changes to the article. Secondly, StAnselm and I were merely changing the text so that it respects the normal NPOV principle by presenting each viewpoint as the POV of a specific person or group rather than stating it as a Wikipedia fact. That's standard procedure, in fact it's required by Wikipedia's rules. Tgeorgescu claims that his position is taught as an undeniable fact in the universities, which is curious for several reasons. How many university classes teach the birth of Jesus at all? The closest thing would be classes on ancient Middle Eastern history, but those generally do not dismiss the Bible as "fiction" except for the few holdovers from 19th century atheist books which claimed that even the civilizations mentioned in the Bible - Babylonians, Assyrians, etc - were allegedly fictional because these authors claimed that the entire thing is fictional. Today, only crackpots claim that these civilizations never existed. Textbooks generally treat the Bible as a valid source alongside the rest, balancing the accounts in the Bible against other accounts of the same incidents rather than dismissing the Bible out of hand. For example, the siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah is mentioned in the Biblical book of Hezekiah and also Assyrian government records and at least one Greek source. The Bible gives the most detail, and those details are generally used in secular textbooks today. If these textbooks mention the birth of Jesus in any detail, they likewise are likely to use the details given in the Bible (since other sources give very little detail). I can guarantee that they aren't likely to use some of the stuff mentioned in this article from allegedly "definitive" authors, such as the purely speculative claim that Jesus was born in Chorazin, which has absolutely not a single historical source to back it up, and very little support among modern historians precisely for that reason. And regardless of what Tgeorgescu claims, it is in fact standard procedure for historians to attempt to reconcile the various accounts, otherwise literally 90% of history would need to be rewritten since virtually all eyewitness accounts differ to varying degrees. The lineup of "Biblical scholars" which Tgeorgescu claims are allegedly the foremost experts on the subject tend to be revisionists who use speculation in place of documented information, and other invalid methods that no historian worth the label would support. The only justifications that Tgeorgescu has presented for his view of an "overwhelming consensus" are : 1) individual authors who claim that everyone agrees with them, which is obviously not sufficient to prove the matter since these authors are not neutral third-party observers but rather partisan participants in the debate. 2) a quote from a History Channel show, which historians generally laugh at as a form of pop entertainment rather than a serious scholarly venue. For the other issues, I think StAnselm already covered most of them. GBRV ( talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by StAnselmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispute revolves around the replacement of "consider both narratives non-historical, arguing that there are contradictions between them" with "consider both narratives non-historical, because of their strongly theological content and the evident contradictions between them". Per WP:BRD, it was appropriate that this addition was reverted and a discussion take place; as far as I can tell, that has not yet produced a consensus. The main argument against the addition is that it suggests that there are contradictions between the nativity accounts - that is, it is stating that in WP voice. Now, should Wikipedia state that these contradictions are real? "What is taught as fact in most major universities" is not the same as an academic consensus. In biblical studies, we have something of a bifurcation between evangelical and non-evangelical scholarship, but "academic consensus" would need to embrace both. (And of course, there are certain things that both camps would agree on.) Within evangelical scholarship, there is a consensus that there are no actual contradictions (i.e. that apparent contradictions can be explained away). In any case, what WP:RS/AC does say is that "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced". That is, if editors think that there is a consensus that such contradictions exist, a source explaining that consensus must be provided by a reliable, independent source. Sanders, Vermes, and Borg certainly don't constitute a consensus. Borg's statement, "I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual" doesn't really fit the bill here, since (a) "not historically factual" is not the same as "contradictory" (e.g. many scholars argue against contradictions on the basis that the original authors were not stupid), and (b) "most mainline scholars" does not constitute a consensus - a majority of mainline scholars is not necessarily an overall majority (and of course, majority is not the same as consensus). St Anselm ( talk) 01:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu:, even with Küng and Casey, we see don't have an overall consensus regarding contradictions. I think you might be reacting more against the edit summary than the edit itself. St Anselm ( talk) 02:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Summary of dispute by Editor2020Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RbreenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Good OlfactoryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Nativity of Jesus#Edit war discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Verified - Editors have been notified of discussion. Neither accepting nor declining case. Cheers, Drcrazy102 ( talk) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
First round of statements:First lets get to the core of what the dispute really is.. Is it what as
StAnselm says,
Alright, we'll focus on one dispute at a time. First lets discuss the dispute of who's view should be mentioned in the article. To be completely neutral, I'd say, mention all significant viewpoints, be it evangelical scholars' or non-evangelical scholars' or academic/scientific consensus' in their due weights. I have two questions now. One for Tgeorgescu and one for GBRV
Please *only* answer the questions briefly. Direct your reply to me not to the fellow editor(s). Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 07:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Second round of statements:Thanks for the statements.
Tgeorgescu has accepted to keep the content in its current form. Going through the references and some Googling, Hans's and Casey's opinions are important and do require a place in the article. And
GBRV is willing to accept that as long as other NPOV issues are sorted. I consider the reference issue resolved.
To what StAnselm said, where was the consensus to include three scholars? Can you show me? Thanks and regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Section breakFirst of all, please reply in brief. I'm having a hard time where to start, and this only prolongs our ability to come to a conclusion. Tgeorgescu, your first source is talking from a religious perspective. Second and third works nice, but what we need is multiple sources that mention the number of scholars (critical) who hold this view. If we can't find one, I'll suggest using some scholars, or removing that sentence as a whole, and attributing it to individual authors. That should address POV and your concern too, won't it GBRV (p.s. I already mentioned that we need to find sources for the use of scholars in general)? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 06:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what edit you want to make the article with this source. I'd be happy with according to Bart Ehrman, "most critical historians consider the tradition of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem to be highly problematic." I wouldn't be happy with the birth narratives are non-historical. I'm happy with Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., but the article should note suggested explanations (e.g. Luke 2:2 should be translated as "This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria",
NIV margin). But I note we already have a paragraph on this.
St
Anselm (
talk) 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
|
“ | If fundamentalist criticism of a biblical scholar is the truest sign of credible scholarship, then Dr. Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has quickly found himself at the top.......it is not only an attack on Ehrman, it’s an attack on critical scholarship | ” |
I feel great pity for Bart Ehrman. It appears that the kind of fundamentalism in which the Christian believer turned biblical debunker was raised did not prepare him for the challenges he would face in college. He was taught, rightly, that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but he was trained, quite falsely, to interpret the non-contradictory nature of the Bible in modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms. That is to say, he was encouraged to test the truth of the Bible against a verification system that has only existed for some 250 years. —Louis Markos, review of Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions By Craig L. Blomberg, Brazos Press, 2014, 304 pages, paper, $19.99, [11]
defining it in a way that suits his own agenda and basically requires agreement with his own conclusions—Can you give me a reliable source (any critical scholar's) which tells this? Are there no critical scholars? If yes, where have they disagreed with Ehrman? At least, where have one critical scholar stated differently on the account of the historicity of Jesus? Ehrman is definitely a reliable source and speaks on behalf of the critical scholars, until any critical scholar states otherwise. P.S. Try to reply in brief. Detailed reply makes the issue complicated. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 11:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evangelical scholars will mostly deny the claims of critical scholars. Similarly, critical scholars will mostly deny the claims of evangelical scholars. We are not mentioning something as a single established view point. If it were so, then any reliable sources that refute the particular claim is enough to make that statement, an opinion. But, that is not the case here. We are mentioning the viewpoint of a community, the statements of anyone who does not belong to the community refuting the viewpoint saying it is not their viewpoint doesn't make any sense.Regards— UY Scuti Talk 19:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
There are other relevant groups of scholars that could also be mentioned in the article— Please answer me this. Is the claim/viewpoint of critical scholar group not significant (be it majority or minority)? All significant viewpoints must be mentioned in the article, and that's what WP:NPOV tells us.
“ |
|
” |
And I'll be more than happy to conclude this case with my earlier suggestion, if PiCo and Tgeorgescu agreed to accept it. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 09:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"(Werlitz 1992: 241, lists 29 different issues which have divided critical scholars in their interpretation of this verse, and that is quite apart from the division between conservative and critical scholars which is here very deep-seated.). But this does not really say whether the discussed WP:RS/AC claim is correct or not, it only says that it is correct to distinguish critical scholars from conservative scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
General close. A case cannot be accepted here when it is also pending at another forum. After the parties were advised to withdraw the original research noticeboard case, a case has been opened between these two editors at the edit-warring noticeboard. The case can be refiled here as a content dispute after any action on the conduct dispute is completed if the parties are willing to resolve it as a content dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This discussion relates to the relative scholarly weight of two opposing POV with respect to how and why the South moved from a Democratic to GOP stronghold. The specific issues are: 1. if one of the RS supports a claim that is being made 2. how the relative scholarly weight of the opposing views can be expressed in the article 3. the agreed weight that should be afforded to each POV. This dispute has expressed itself a a series of edits and reverts to the article page. [13]
Extensive talk page discussion which has resulted in no compromise. I requested Editor Assistance regarding the question of POV weight. No third party editors replied [14] Scoobydunk filed a NOR notice. One editor has replied, not resolved [15] How do you think we can help? I think we need a neutral 3rd party to weigh the relative merits of the arguments. We are at a simple impasse. Summary of dispute by ScoobydunkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I've listed and quoted multiple peer reviewed sources that claim the majority viewpoint in scholarship is that the racial appeals of the Southern Strategy were the prevailing cause of partisan realignment during the civil rights era, and this is commonly referred to as the top-down thesis of the southern strategy. [16] As per WP:NPOV, articles should largely reflect what the mainstream scholarship or the majority point of view is, while only giving a brief description of minority viewpoints if any mention is warranted at all. Springee argues that the top-down point of view is no longer the majority point of view, and that equal weight should be given to an alternative pov called the "suburban strategy" or "bottom up" strategy. He's presented 0 sources that have expressed the alternative point of view as being "equal", and bases his argument on independently conducted research, which you can read in links above. At the moment, this isn't a content issue and the discussion is currently open at the original research noticeboard. So I don't know why Springee posted this dispute here. Disputes aren't suppose to be listed here if they are open at other dispute resolution noticeboards, and Springee's overview clearly focuses on issues involving weight, not anything that is content specific. Scoobydunk ( talk) 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Talk:Southern strategy#Oct_2015_edits_to_lead discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Procedural close as outside the scope of this noticeboard. This appears to be a content dispute in the Russian Wikipedia. This noticeboard is for resolving content disputes in the English Wikipedia. (The editors are not involved in a content dispute in the English Wikipedia.) The editors are advised to determine what the dispute resolution procedures are in the Russian Wikipedia, either by researching its own policies and guidelines, or by asking a Russian-literate volunteer for assistance at this noticeboard's talk page or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dear Wiki, I am one of the original authors of Eset Kotibaruli wiki (this is his real name): https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2 In August 4, 2015, User:Esetok have done significant changes which were not authorized by me or any other experienced editor of Wikipedia. The user has changed his name, although his Kazakh name is Eset Kotibaruli, changed his date of birth from 1803-1889 to 1807-1888 and remove a lot of previous content which was verified by other wiki users: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?title=%D0%95%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2&type=revision&diff=72547706&oldid=67873112 His correct date of birth was notified in many latest sources and even written correctly on his mausoleum in Kazakhstan. Eset Kotibaruli fought for independence of Kazakhs in 19th century as it can be seen in many sources from Europe, Asia, Russia. The user just based his changes mostly on tsarist Russian sources which obviously were against any type of Kazakh revolt and contained extremely negative descriptions of Kazakh public figures including Eset Kotibaruli. I'm not sure what kind of grudge or bias User:Esetok has against Eset Kotibaruli, but he started writing non-neutral and mostly negative facts using the old Russian tsarist source from Л. Мейер. Киргизская Степь Оренбургского ведомства. — СПб., 1865. Л. Мейер (general in tsarist colonial army) obviously was involved in colonization of Kazakhstan and headed missions on capturing rebels, crimes against civilians, suppressing human rights of native Kazakh people. Hence, his account about Eset Kotibaruli is very negative, biased, and non-neutral. User:Esetok based his new section "Характер и личные качества" completely on that source without showing any positive feedback from other neutral, scientific and historical sources. He has removed many important facts in 2015 as you can see in the history. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss the points above and provide links, but the user Esetok has reverted my changes many times although all changes were from the previous versions of this wiki which were moderated and approved in the past by wiki moderators, and are sourced from well known sources even those listed there. We discussed on my page as well, but User:Esetok is being unfriendly and does not answer why he/she deleted previous versions in 2015 August and why he changed facts and being biased. How do you think we can help? I think wiki either should restore the original versions which were corrupted by User:Esetok in 2015, use professional historians to write the articles in a scientific and neutral way, or delete the disputed sections or delete the wiki article if there is no solution. Otherwise i feel wrong information is being distributed to unsuspecting users. Summary of dispute by EsetokPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82 %D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
The main success of dispute resolution is cooperation. And the one editor is failing to do just that. My repeated requests have gone unheard. I suspect a WP:CIR and (or) the editor is ignoring me. I may have asked the editor to step back from the discussion if they were one of the many participants, but I can do nothing here. Editors may seek other venues for solving their disputes ( Request for Comments would be an option, but it won't work if the summary is not nice and short). And I believe there's nothing that could possibly done here. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 05:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by
BalCoder on 10:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Politically partisan disruptive editing of Proportional representation by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd to show First-past-the-post voting in a better light and to diminish PR and particularly mixed member proportional representation. I have been advised to come here, by here, here, here), although my personal opinion is that the lack of good faith by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd is so obvious he should simply be blocked. Have you tried to resolve this previously? WP:ANI which no admin responded to. A WP:POLITICS request for help. Admin User:Abecedare protected the article - see too User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_21#Experiencing_revert_war_on_Proportional_representation. A previous WP:DRN dispute, [ [17]], was closed because Ontario Teacher BFA BEd did not respond. How do you think we can help? Moderate the discussion so that Ontario Teacher BFA BEd is forced to confront/answer the arguments. There are several points of contention, let's take them one by one. Summary of dispute by Ontario Teacher BFA BEdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have updated the proportional representation article through sourced edits, and minor edits. I have noted that mixed member proportional (MPP) is a mixed electoral system, closed list proportional representation does not allow voters to individually select candidates, pure closed list PR does not include delineated districts, and MMP (with a couple rare exceptions) does not produce fully proportional results. Most updates I have made were Minor Edits such as: spelling and grammar errors, the addition of Wiki-links (for closed, open, and local list PR), formatting that does not change the meaning of a page (such as adding a table based on existing data or creating subtitles for closed, open and local list PR), obvious factual errors (such as updating that Russia uses MMP now instead of PR), and fixing layout errors. All edits I have made were thoroughly sourced. Furthermore, I have also added over 30 sources to the talk page alone. The only objections to these edits were made by User:BalCoder. This user has refused to provide a single source to substantiate his/her reversions. A good faith editor would provide sources, and perform adaptive edits in order to avoid an edit war. 1. MMP is a mixed electoral system. I have provided 9 sources which states MMP is a mixed electoral system. [1] [2] [3] [4]: 22 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] All mixed electoral systems share elements of both plurality voting systems and proportional representation voting systems. Mixed electoral systems are semi-proportional. Please review the table below:
2. PR systems don't always include districts: BalCoder has stated that all PR systems use delineated districts Talk:Proportional representation (25 Aug 15). I have provided several sourced example of nations using PR, which do not include delineated districts. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [12] 3. Minor Structural Changes: I have provided subcategories for party-list PR: closed list, open list, and localized list with Wikilinks. I have also restored the mixed systems category that BalCoder renamed to two-tier systems (a confusing term that is almost never used) on the PR article on (11 Dec 2014). I have provided several sources which clearly state that MMP is semi-proportional, including specific example of MMP elections that provide semi-proportional results. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] These is no political motivation by pointing out these obvious facts. The accusation of political motivation is simply an ad hominem attack. There is no diminishing language of MMP whatsoever. Plurality voting systems are scarcely mentioned. In closed/open list-PR, the advantages and disadvantages of single-district nations, and elected officials selected by party leaders are fairly included (and sources). [27] [28] BalCoder has edited the article while logged out with the IP address: 131.104.138.174 stating "The [FPTP] single winner system exists only in Canada, UK, and US". In fact, First-past-the-post voting is used by 47 countries, not 3. [29] Therefore, it is BalCoder, and not I, who is engaging in POV editing/reverting. Additionally, I find the assumption that I am male to be sexist. Wikipedia should be a space where female editors are given the same level of respect and dignity as male editors. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC) References
Talk:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First round of statements:To be honest, I didn't really get a summary of the dispute from the above summaries. But it seems there are more than one. Lets try and solve one at a time. @ BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: What's the first issue we need to solve here? Please direct your comments to me, and comment only on the content. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This sentence in para.2 of the lead as currently protected: " Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method", is supported by three sources (refs 6-8). User:Ontario should answer the following questions: 1, are the three references WP:RS? 2, do they support the statement that MMP is "usually considered a distinct PR method"? If no, why? -- BalCoder ( talk) 11:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
(The currently protected version is the version Ontario wants to change). The three sources are reliable sources. Ref 6, p.22: "Proportional representation includes three basic types of systems: List PR system, single transferrable vote system, mixed member proportional system". Ref 7, p.142-143: "..we can distinguish three broad families .. 'single transferable vote' system ..the 'additional member system' .. the 'party list system'" (AMS is the British name for MMP, see [18]). Ref 8: "..there are three basic kinds of PR described below: party list, mixed-member, and single-transferable vote (also called choice voting)." -- BalCoder ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A. FPTP is used in more than 3 countries B. I move the statement, "single-winner systems or plurality/majority (the idea of pluralismin politics is acknowledgment of diversity not like single-winner system which works for domination of two biggest parties). The single winner system exists only in Canada, UK, and US" be removed as it is incorrect, and no source was provided to substantiate it. Plurality voting systems are used in more than 3 countries. Here is a list of countries currently using plurality voting (updated as of Nov 2015): [15]
A. PR is not used in the majority of nations B. I move that the phrase "PR systems (in overwhelming majority of countries pretending to be democratic)" be removed. It is incorrect, and no source was included to substantiate it. In actuality, PR is used in only 36% of the world's nations. [16] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A. Some list-PR nations (like Israel and the Netherlands) don't use delineated districts B. I move the following text be restored, "The disadvantage of some closed list and open list proportional representation systems is as districts do not exist, there is no link between voters and their parliamentary representative.[49] An example of a closed list PR system is Israel, where the entire nation is a single zone.[50][51] Therefore, residents within Israel do not have parliamentary representatives to meet their specific regional needs. The Netherlands, which uses an open-list PR system, also does not include delineated districts. The whole country forms one zone of 150 members, which means although the election results are proportional, the link between elected members and their geographic area is extremely weak.[52] In the Dutch open list PR system, "It does not matter where these votes were cast; there are no electoral districts".[53] In the 2006 and 2007 Ukrainian parliamentary elections, a single nationwide electoral zone was used.[54] Likewise, the 2007 and 2011 Russian legislative election used a single nationwide electoral zone.[55] In February 2014, Vladimir Putin signed into law the restoration of MMP— a mixed electoral system.[56] With the exception of the local list PR system, candidates do not represent districts in List PR systems. As noted in the Electoral Reform Society of the United Kingdom, “Closed party lists are completely impersonal, weakening any link between the representative and a regional area”.[57] C. This information was sourced, and the sources were accurately represented. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [19] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A. Closed list PR elected officials are selected by the party leader, and not by voters B. I move the following text be restored "Closed list describes the variant of party-list proportional representation where voters can (effectively) only vote for political parties as a whole and thus have no influence on the party-supplied order in which party candidates are elected. In closed list proportional representation systems, parties each list their candidates according to direction from their party leaders.[72] As noted in the Electoral Society of the United Kingdom, “As candidates are selected by the party leaders, they are likely to put 'safe' candidates near the top of the list, at the expense of traditionally under-represented groups”.[73] Therefore, in a closed-list PR system, there is no mechanism for voters to eject candidates, so long as these candidates are supported by their party leader." C. This information was sourced, and the sources were accurately portrayed. [26] [27] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) References
@ BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Alright. Lets try once again. As I said before, we'll discuss one issue at a time. Your replies should stick to the point/question, be civil and concise. Your replies must not point to your fellow editor, point your concerns (only about the content) to me. I see no other option but to fail the case if you're not ready to listen. And yes Ontario, you're reply was too long to read ( WP:TLDR). As BalCoder explained, the first issue seems to be whether the statement—Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method., is supported by reliable sources or not. It currently has three sources, of which two are online. BalCoder, why do you think the three (or less) are not reliable sources? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, why do you think they are reliable sources? Please quote the sentences from the sources (maybe a line or two) which supports the disputed statement. Thanks and regards— UY Scuti Talk 19:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Withdrawn by filing party. If any other parties desire to continue here, they may refile, as may the filing party should the need for dispute resolution here reassert itself. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There has been a somewhat heated discussion on this talk page which has resulted in some personal attacks. I have not added anything to the article yet. I have tried to provide the reliable sources first on the talk page and what I would like to do. However I am being second guessed as to what I plan to add to the article. I don't feel we will get anywhere further without a neutral editor coming in and mediating the situation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to outline on the talk page exactly why I feel NPOV is not being met and the reliable sources I have identified. How do you think we can help? This article appears to be very contentious. Need someone neutral editor to help resolve and perhaps guide me in how best to make an addition to this article based on correct Wikipedia policy. The article talk page has become a bit heated with some personal attacks yesterday. I think rather than focusing on individual editors and attacking each other it may be worthwhile having an experienced neutral editor come in and help resolve the dispute. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.
Statement by Charlotte135We are left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are far from fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that as other editors have suggested? Sound reasonable? Charlotte135 ( talk) 14:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Flyer22 RebornPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GandydancerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FyddlestixPlease note that both Flyer and Gandy have both expressed their intention not to respond or interact with Charlotte 135 further on the article's talk page: [19] [20]. As myself and others have repeatedly pointed out on the article talk page [21], Charlotte 135 appears to be insisting that others weight in on the weight/reliability of specific sources, while refusing to specify how they intend to use those sources or to propose/make any actual revisions. The discussion has gone round in circles several times, but they refuse to actually propose or make an edit. Until they do, I don't really think there's anything that can be fruitfully discussed here. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Domestic violence discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Apology. Will do so right now. Charlotte135 ( talk) 01:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Participants have agreed to the following proposal; If an author's statement is generally considered reliable, and a particular statement of his/her doesn't have supporting multiple reliable sources, then it can/should be attributed to its author. It is not necessary to attribute a opinion piece to multiple authors. For something to be established as fact (be it academic consensus, evangelical scholars' consensus or any consensus), multiple reliable sources are required. Thanks for all of your cooperation to solve this dispute peacefully and for your patience. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. GBRV has pampered (softened) WP:RS/AC claims about the consensus among modern Bible scholars. He denies the application of WP:RS/AC based upon such original research claims that Catholic scholars cannot see contradictions inside the Bible or that Bible historians should aim to harmonize biblical contradictions since supposedly other historians do that with eyewitness accounts (this is the GBRV recipe of what Bible scholars should do for a living). @ StAnselm: You did not address all the sources, e.g. some sources have been weeded out (cherry-picked) at [1] under the motto "This is just a restatement of the same thing, again as a Wikipedia fact rather than an opinion; with a more extreme source added claiming that even Catholics supposedly reject their own sacred text (!)" Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC) @ StAnselm: In the end the text itself (without considering the references) is not so bad, I can agree with the current formulation. The problem is that weeding out the other sources makes the consensus claim shallow or unsupported. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) The consensus claim is applied to modern scholars. Modern is in this context in opposition with fundamentalist and/or traditional. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I would not object to changing "modern scholars" to "critical scholars". Further, I see that the sources verify two different claims: consensus of modern/critical scholars and the existence of contradictions. Maybe those two claims got conflated and we should separate them. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have reverted to the stable version of the article, but I don't want to get involved in an edit war. How do you think we can help? Make editors understand that obeying WP:RS/AC is not optional. They cannot say that what is taught as fact in most major universities should be presented inside Wikipedia as mere opinion. I do admit that fundamentalist Bible scholars beg to differ from what is taught in most major universities, but that can be rendered as a dissenting (minority) view. The lion's share should go to the academic consensus. Summary of dispute by GBRVPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Firstly, the thing that Tgeorgescu is calling an "edit war" was a moderate number of small changes spread thinly over a period of several weeks. The term "edit war" generally refers to rapid and copious changes each day. If every handful of changes over several weeks would trigger a dispute resolution request, you'd be deluged with thousands of requests. He also ignored my comments on the talk page for over a week, then filed a dispute resolution request once he finally did respond. This is therefore an improper use of such a request, and seems designed to prevent other people from even making routine changes to the article. Secondly, StAnselm and I were merely changing the text so that it respects the normal NPOV principle by presenting each viewpoint as the POV of a specific person or group rather than stating it as a Wikipedia fact. That's standard procedure, in fact it's required by Wikipedia's rules. Tgeorgescu claims that his position is taught as an undeniable fact in the universities, which is curious for several reasons. How many university classes teach the birth of Jesus at all? The closest thing would be classes on ancient Middle Eastern history, but those generally do not dismiss the Bible as "fiction" except for the few holdovers from 19th century atheist books which claimed that even the civilizations mentioned in the Bible - Babylonians, Assyrians, etc - were allegedly fictional because these authors claimed that the entire thing is fictional. Today, only crackpots claim that these civilizations never existed. Textbooks generally treat the Bible as a valid source alongside the rest, balancing the accounts in the Bible against other accounts of the same incidents rather than dismissing the Bible out of hand. For example, the siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah is mentioned in the Biblical book of Hezekiah and also Assyrian government records and at least one Greek source. The Bible gives the most detail, and those details are generally used in secular textbooks today. If these textbooks mention the birth of Jesus in any detail, they likewise are likely to use the details given in the Bible (since other sources give very little detail). I can guarantee that they aren't likely to use some of the stuff mentioned in this article from allegedly "definitive" authors, such as the purely speculative claim that Jesus was born in Chorazin, which has absolutely not a single historical source to back it up, and very little support among modern historians precisely for that reason. And regardless of what Tgeorgescu claims, it is in fact standard procedure for historians to attempt to reconcile the various accounts, otherwise literally 90% of history would need to be rewritten since virtually all eyewitness accounts differ to varying degrees. The lineup of "Biblical scholars" which Tgeorgescu claims are allegedly the foremost experts on the subject tend to be revisionists who use speculation in place of documented information, and other invalid methods that no historian worth the label would support. The only justifications that Tgeorgescu has presented for his view of an "overwhelming consensus" are : 1) individual authors who claim that everyone agrees with them, which is obviously not sufficient to prove the matter since these authors are not neutral third-party observers but rather partisan participants in the debate. 2) a quote from a History Channel show, which historians generally laugh at as a form of pop entertainment rather than a serious scholarly venue. For the other issues, I think StAnselm already covered most of them. GBRV ( talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by StAnselmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispute revolves around the replacement of "consider both narratives non-historical, arguing that there are contradictions between them" with "consider both narratives non-historical, because of their strongly theological content and the evident contradictions between them". Per WP:BRD, it was appropriate that this addition was reverted and a discussion take place; as far as I can tell, that has not yet produced a consensus. The main argument against the addition is that it suggests that there are contradictions between the nativity accounts - that is, it is stating that in WP voice. Now, should Wikipedia state that these contradictions are real? "What is taught as fact in most major universities" is not the same as an academic consensus. In biblical studies, we have something of a bifurcation between evangelical and non-evangelical scholarship, but "academic consensus" would need to embrace both. (And of course, there are certain things that both camps would agree on.) Within evangelical scholarship, there is a consensus that there are no actual contradictions (i.e. that apparent contradictions can be explained away). In any case, what WP:RS/AC does say is that "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced". That is, if editors think that there is a consensus that such contradictions exist, a source explaining that consensus must be provided by a reliable, independent source. Sanders, Vermes, and Borg certainly don't constitute a consensus. Borg's statement, "I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual" doesn't really fit the bill here, since (a) "not historically factual" is not the same as "contradictory" (e.g. many scholars argue against contradictions on the basis that the original authors were not stupid), and (b) "most mainline scholars" does not constitute a consensus - a majority of mainline scholars is not necessarily an overall majority (and of course, majority is not the same as consensus). St Anselm ( talk) 01:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu:, even with Küng and Casey, we see don't have an overall consensus regarding contradictions. I think you might be reacting more against the edit summary than the edit itself. St Anselm ( talk) 02:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Summary of dispute by Editor2020Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RbreenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Good OlfactoryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Nativity of Jesus#Edit war discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Verified - Editors have been notified of discussion. Neither accepting nor declining case. Cheers, Drcrazy102 ( talk) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
First round of statements:First lets get to the core of what the dispute really is.. Is it what as
StAnselm says,
Alright, we'll focus on one dispute at a time. First lets discuss the dispute of who's view should be mentioned in the article. To be completely neutral, I'd say, mention all significant viewpoints, be it evangelical scholars' or non-evangelical scholars' or academic/scientific consensus' in their due weights. I have two questions now. One for Tgeorgescu and one for GBRV
Please *only* answer the questions briefly. Direct your reply to me not to the fellow editor(s). Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 07:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Second round of statements:Thanks for the statements.
Tgeorgescu has accepted to keep the content in its current form. Going through the references and some Googling, Hans's and Casey's opinions are important and do require a place in the article. And
GBRV is willing to accept that as long as other NPOV issues are sorted. I consider the reference issue resolved.
To what StAnselm said, where was the consensus to include three scholars? Can you show me? Thanks and regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Section breakFirst of all, please reply in brief. I'm having a hard time where to start, and this only prolongs our ability to come to a conclusion. Tgeorgescu, your first source is talking from a religious perspective. Second and third works nice, but what we need is multiple sources that mention the number of scholars (critical) who hold this view. If we can't find one, I'll suggest using some scholars, or removing that sentence as a whole, and attributing it to individual authors. That should address POV and your concern too, won't it GBRV (p.s. I already mentioned that we need to find sources for the use of scholars in general)? Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 06:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what edit you want to make the article with this source. I'd be happy with according to Bart Ehrman, "most critical historians consider the tradition of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem to be highly problematic." I wouldn't be happy with the birth narratives are non-historical. I'm happy with Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., but the article should note suggested explanations (e.g. Luke 2:2 should be translated as "This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria",
NIV margin). But I note we already have a paragraph on this.
St
Anselm (
talk) 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
|
“ | If fundamentalist criticism of a biblical scholar is the truest sign of credible scholarship, then Dr. Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has quickly found himself at the top.......it is not only an attack on Ehrman, it’s an attack on critical scholarship | ” |
I feel great pity for Bart Ehrman. It appears that the kind of fundamentalism in which the Christian believer turned biblical debunker was raised did not prepare him for the challenges he would face in college. He was taught, rightly, that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but he was trained, quite falsely, to interpret the non-contradictory nature of the Bible in modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms. That is to say, he was encouraged to test the truth of the Bible against a verification system that has only existed for some 250 years. —Louis Markos, review of Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions By Craig L. Blomberg, Brazos Press, 2014, 304 pages, paper, $19.99, [11]
defining it in a way that suits his own agenda and basically requires agreement with his own conclusions—Can you give me a reliable source (any critical scholar's) which tells this? Are there no critical scholars? If yes, where have they disagreed with Ehrman? At least, where have one critical scholar stated differently on the account of the historicity of Jesus? Ehrman is definitely a reliable source and speaks on behalf of the critical scholars, until any critical scholar states otherwise. P.S. Try to reply in brief. Detailed reply makes the issue complicated. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 11:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Evangelical scholars will mostly deny the claims of critical scholars. Similarly, critical scholars will mostly deny the claims of evangelical scholars. We are not mentioning something as a single established view point. If it were so, then any reliable sources that refute the particular claim is enough to make that statement, an opinion. But, that is not the case here. We are mentioning the viewpoint of a community, the statements of anyone who does not belong to the community refuting the viewpoint saying it is not their viewpoint doesn't make any sense.Regards— UY Scuti Talk 19:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
There are other relevant groups of scholars that could also be mentioned in the article— Please answer me this. Is the claim/viewpoint of critical scholar group not significant (be it majority or minority)? All significant viewpoints must be mentioned in the article, and that's what WP:NPOV tells us.
“ |
|
” |
And I'll be more than happy to conclude this case with my earlier suggestion, if PiCo and Tgeorgescu agreed to accept it. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 09:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"(Werlitz 1992: 241, lists 29 different issues which have divided critical scholars in their interpretation of this verse, and that is quite apart from the division between conservative and critical scholars which is here very deep-seated.). But this does not really say whether the discussed WP:RS/AC claim is correct or not, it only says that it is correct to distinguish critical scholars from conservative scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
General close. A case cannot be accepted here when it is also pending at another forum. After the parties were advised to withdraw the original research noticeboard case, a case has been opened between these two editors at the edit-warring noticeboard. The case can be refiled here as a content dispute after any action on the conduct dispute is completed if the parties are willing to resolve it as a content dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This discussion relates to the relative scholarly weight of two opposing POV with respect to how and why the South moved from a Democratic to GOP stronghold. The specific issues are: 1. if one of the RS supports a claim that is being made 2. how the relative scholarly weight of the opposing views can be expressed in the article 3. the agreed weight that should be afforded to each POV. This dispute has expressed itself a a series of edits and reverts to the article page. [13]
Extensive talk page discussion which has resulted in no compromise. I requested Editor Assistance regarding the question of POV weight. No third party editors replied [14] Scoobydunk filed a NOR notice. One editor has replied, not resolved [15] How do you think we can help? I think we need a neutral 3rd party to weigh the relative merits of the arguments. We are at a simple impasse. Summary of dispute by ScoobydunkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I've listed and quoted multiple peer reviewed sources that claim the majority viewpoint in scholarship is that the racial appeals of the Southern Strategy were the prevailing cause of partisan realignment during the civil rights era, and this is commonly referred to as the top-down thesis of the southern strategy. [16] As per WP:NPOV, articles should largely reflect what the mainstream scholarship or the majority point of view is, while only giving a brief description of minority viewpoints if any mention is warranted at all. Springee argues that the top-down point of view is no longer the majority point of view, and that equal weight should be given to an alternative pov called the "suburban strategy" or "bottom up" strategy. He's presented 0 sources that have expressed the alternative point of view as being "equal", and bases his argument on independently conducted research, which you can read in links above. At the moment, this isn't a content issue and the discussion is currently open at the original research noticeboard. So I don't know why Springee posted this dispute here. Disputes aren't suppose to be listed here if they are open at other dispute resolution noticeboards, and Springee's overview clearly focuses on issues involving weight, not anything that is content specific. Scoobydunk ( talk) 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Talk:Southern strategy#Oct_2015_edits_to_lead discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Procedural close as outside the scope of this noticeboard. This appears to be a content dispute in the Russian Wikipedia. This noticeboard is for resolving content disputes in the English Wikipedia. (The editors are not involved in a content dispute in the English Wikipedia.) The editors are advised to determine what the dispute resolution procedures are in the Russian Wikipedia, either by researching its own policies and guidelines, or by asking a Russian-literate volunteer for assistance at this noticeboard's talk page or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dear Wiki, I am one of the original authors of Eset Kotibaruli wiki (this is his real name): https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2 In August 4, 2015, User:Esetok have done significant changes which were not authorized by me or any other experienced editor of Wikipedia. The user has changed his name, although his Kazakh name is Eset Kotibaruli, changed his date of birth from 1803-1889 to 1807-1888 and remove a lot of previous content which was verified by other wiki users: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?title=%D0%95%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2&type=revision&diff=72547706&oldid=67873112 His correct date of birth was notified in many latest sources and even written correctly on his mausoleum in Kazakhstan. Eset Kotibaruli fought for independence of Kazakhs in 19th century as it can be seen in many sources from Europe, Asia, Russia. The user just based his changes mostly on tsarist Russian sources which obviously were against any type of Kazakh revolt and contained extremely negative descriptions of Kazakh public figures including Eset Kotibaruli. I'm not sure what kind of grudge or bias User:Esetok has against Eset Kotibaruli, but he started writing non-neutral and mostly negative facts using the old Russian tsarist source from Л. Мейер. Киргизская Степь Оренбургского ведомства. — СПб., 1865. Л. Мейер (general in tsarist colonial army) obviously was involved in colonization of Kazakhstan and headed missions on capturing rebels, crimes against civilians, suppressing human rights of native Kazakh people. Hence, his account about Eset Kotibaruli is very negative, biased, and non-neutral. User:Esetok based his new section "Характер и личные качества" completely on that source without showing any positive feedback from other neutral, scientific and historical sources. He has removed many important facts in 2015 as you can see in the history. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss the points above and provide links, but the user Esetok has reverted my changes many times although all changes were from the previous versions of this wiki which were moderated and approved in the past by wiki moderators, and are sourced from well known sources even those listed there. We discussed on my page as well, but User:Esetok is being unfriendly and does not answer why he/she deleted previous versions in 2015 August and why he changed facts and being biased. How do you think we can help? I think wiki either should restore the original versions which were corrupted by User:Esetok in 2015, use professional historians to write the articles in a scientific and neutral way, or delete the disputed sections or delete the wiki article if there is no solution. Otherwise i feel wrong information is being distributed to unsuspecting users. Summary of dispute by EsetokPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82 %D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
The main success of dispute resolution is cooperation. And the one editor is failing to do just that. My repeated requests have gone unheard. I suspect a WP:CIR and (or) the editor is ignoring me. I may have asked the editor to step back from the discussion if they were one of the many participants, but I can do nothing here. Editors may seek other venues for solving their disputes ( Request for Comments would be an option, but it won't work if the summary is not nice and short). And I believe there's nothing that could possibly done here. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 05:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by
BalCoder on 10:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Politically partisan disruptive editing of Proportional representation by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd to show First-past-the-post voting in a better light and to diminish PR and particularly mixed member proportional representation. I have been advised to come here, by here, here, here), although my personal opinion is that the lack of good faith by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd is so obvious he should simply be blocked. Have you tried to resolve this previously? WP:ANI which no admin responded to. A WP:POLITICS request for help. Admin User:Abecedare protected the article - see too User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_21#Experiencing_revert_war_on_Proportional_representation. A previous WP:DRN dispute, [ [17]], was closed because Ontario Teacher BFA BEd did not respond. How do you think we can help? Moderate the discussion so that Ontario Teacher BFA BEd is forced to confront/answer the arguments. There are several points of contention, let's take them one by one. Summary of dispute by Ontario Teacher BFA BEdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have updated the proportional representation article through sourced edits, and minor edits. I have noted that mixed member proportional (MPP) is a mixed electoral system, closed list proportional representation does not allow voters to individually select candidates, pure closed list PR does not include delineated districts, and MMP (with a couple rare exceptions) does not produce fully proportional results. Most updates I have made were Minor Edits such as: spelling and grammar errors, the addition of Wiki-links (for closed, open, and local list PR), formatting that does not change the meaning of a page (such as adding a table based on existing data or creating subtitles for closed, open and local list PR), obvious factual errors (such as updating that Russia uses MMP now instead of PR), and fixing layout errors. All edits I have made were thoroughly sourced. Furthermore, I have also added over 30 sources to the talk page alone. The only objections to these edits were made by User:BalCoder. This user has refused to provide a single source to substantiate his/her reversions. A good faith editor would provide sources, and perform adaptive edits in order to avoid an edit war. 1. MMP is a mixed electoral system. I have provided 9 sources which states MMP is a mixed electoral system. [1] [2] [3] [4]: 22 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] All mixed electoral systems share elements of both plurality voting systems and proportional representation voting systems. Mixed electoral systems are semi-proportional. Please review the table below:
2. PR systems don't always include districts: BalCoder has stated that all PR systems use delineated districts Talk:Proportional representation (25 Aug 15). I have provided several sourced example of nations using PR, which do not include delineated districts. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [12] 3. Minor Structural Changes: I have provided subcategories for party-list PR: closed list, open list, and localized list with Wikilinks. I have also restored the mixed systems category that BalCoder renamed to two-tier systems (a confusing term that is almost never used) on the PR article on (11 Dec 2014). I have provided several sources which clearly state that MMP is semi-proportional, including specific example of MMP elections that provide semi-proportional results. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] These is no political motivation by pointing out these obvious facts. The accusation of political motivation is simply an ad hominem attack. There is no diminishing language of MMP whatsoever. Plurality voting systems are scarcely mentioned. In closed/open list-PR, the advantages and disadvantages of single-district nations, and elected officials selected by party leaders are fairly included (and sources). [27] [28] BalCoder has edited the article while logged out with the IP address: 131.104.138.174 stating "The [FPTP] single winner system exists only in Canada, UK, and US". In fact, First-past-the-post voting is used by 47 countries, not 3. [29] Therefore, it is BalCoder, and not I, who is engaging in POV editing/reverting. Additionally, I find the assumption that I am male to be sexist. Wikipedia should be a space where female editors are given the same level of respect and dignity as male editors. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC) References
Talk:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First round of statements:To be honest, I didn't really get a summary of the dispute from the above summaries. But it seems there are more than one. Lets try and solve one at a time. @ BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: What's the first issue we need to solve here? Please direct your comments to me, and comment only on the content. Regards— UY Scuti Talk 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This sentence in para.2 of the lead as currently protected: " Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method", is supported by three sources (refs 6-8). User:Ontario should answer the following questions: 1, are the three references WP:RS? 2, do they support the statement that MMP is "usually considered a distinct PR method"? If no, why? -- BalCoder ( talk) 11:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
(The currently protected version is the version Ontario wants to change). The three sources are reliable sources. Ref 6, p.22: "Proportional representation includes three basic types of systems: List PR system, single transferrable vote system, mixed member proportional system". Ref 7, p.142-143: "..we can distinguish three broad families .. 'single transferable vote' system ..the 'additional member system' .. the 'party list system'" (AMS is the British name for MMP, see [18]). Ref 8: "..there are three basic kinds of PR described below: party list, mixed-member, and single-transferable vote (also called choice voting)." -- BalCoder ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A. FPTP is used in more than 3 countries B. I move the statement, "single-winner systems or plurality/majority (the idea of pluralismin politics is acknowledgment of diversity not like single-winner system which works for domination of two biggest parties). The single winner system exists only in Canada, UK, and US" be removed as it is incorrect, and no source was provided to substantiate it. Plurality voting systems are used in more than 3 countries. Here is a list of countries currently using plurality voting (updated as of Nov 2015): [15]
A. PR is not used in the majority of nations B. I move that the phrase "PR systems (in overwhelming majority of countries pretending to be democratic)" be removed. It is incorrect, and no source was included to substantiate it. In actuality, PR is used in only 36% of the world's nations. [16] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A. Some list-PR nations (like Israel and the Netherlands) don't use delineated districts B. I move the following text be restored, "The disadvantage of some closed list and open list proportional representation systems is as districts do not exist, there is no link between voters and their parliamentary representative.[49] An example of a closed list PR system is Israel, where the entire nation is a single zone.[50][51] Therefore, residents within Israel do not have parliamentary representatives to meet their specific regional needs. The Netherlands, which uses an open-list PR system, also does not include delineated districts. The whole country forms one zone of 150 members, which means although the election results are proportional, the link between elected members and their geographic area is extremely weak.[52] In the Dutch open list PR system, "It does not matter where these votes were cast; there are no electoral districts".[53] In the 2006 and 2007 Ukrainian parliamentary elections, a single nationwide electoral zone was used.[54] Likewise, the 2007 and 2011 Russian legislative election used a single nationwide electoral zone.[55] In February 2014, Vladimir Putin signed into law the restoration of MMP— a mixed electoral system.[56] With the exception of the local list PR system, candidates do not represent districts in List PR systems. As noted in the Electoral Reform Society of the United Kingdom, “Closed party lists are completely impersonal, weakening any link between the representative and a regional area”.[57] C. This information was sourced, and the sources were accurately represented. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [19] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A. Closed list PR elected officials are selected by the party leader, and not by voters B. I move the following text be restored "Closed list describes the variant of party-list proportional representation where voters can (effectively) only vote for political parties as a whole and thus have no influence on the party-supplied order in which party candidates are elected. In closed list proportional representation systems, parties each list their candidates according to direction from their party leaders.[72] As noted in the Electoral Society of the United Kingdom, “As candidates are selected by the party leaders, they are likely to put 'safe' candidates near the top of the list, at the expense of traditionally under-represented groups”.[73] Therefore, in a closed-list PR system, there is no mechanism for voters to eject candidates, so long as these candidates are supported by their party leader." C. This information was sourced, and the sources were accurately portrayed. [26] [27] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) References
@ BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Alright. Lets try once again. As I said before, we'll discuss one issue at a time. Your replies should stick to the point/question, be civil and concise. Your replies must not point to your fellow editor, point your concerns (only about the content) to me. I see no other option but to fail the case if you're not ready to listen. And yes Ontario, you're reply was too long to read ( WP:TLDR). As BalCoder explained, the first issue seems to be whether the statement—Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method., is supported by reliable sources or not. It currently has three sources, of which two are online. BalCoder, why do you think the three (or less) are not reliable sources? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, why do you think they are reliable sources? Please quote the sentences from the sources (maybe a line or two) which supports the disputed statement. Thanks and regards— UY Scuti Talk 19:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Withdrawn by filing party. If any other parties desire to continue here, they may refile, as may the filing party should the need for dispute resolution here reassert itself. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There has been a somewhat heated discussion on this talk page which has resulted in some personal attacks. I have not added anything to the article yet. I have tried to provide the reliable sources first on the talk page and what I would like to do. However I am being second guessed as to what I plan to add to the article. I don't feel we will get anywhere further without a neutral editor coming in and mediating the situation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to outline on the talk page exactly why I feel NPOV is not being met and the reliable sources I have identified. How do you think we can help? This article appears to be very contentious. Need someone neutral editor to help resolve and perhaps guide me in how best to make an addition to this article based on correct Wikipedia policy. The article talk page has become a bit heated with some personal attacks yesterday. I think rather than focusing on individual editors and attacking each other it may be worthwhile having an experienced neutral editor come in and help resolve the dispute. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.
Statement by Charlotte135We are left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are far from fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that as other editors have suggested? Sound reasonable? Charlotte135 ( talk) 14:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Flyer22 RebornPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GandydancerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FyddlestixPlease note that both Flyer and Gandy have both expressed their intention not to respond or interact with Charlotte 135 further on the article's talk page: [19] [20]. As myself and others have repeatedly pointed out on the article talk page [21], Charlotte 135 appears to be insisting that others weight in on the weight/reliability of specific sources, while refusing to specify how they intend to use those sources or to propose/make any actual revisions. The discussion has gone round in circles several times, but they refuse to actually propose or make an edit. Until they do, I don't really think there's anything that can be fruitfully discussed here. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Domestic violence discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Apology. Will do so right now. Charlotte135 ( talk) 01:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
|