Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 126
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 120 | ← | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | → | Archive 130 |
Talk:Nativity of Jesus#Edit war
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). StAnselm (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. StAnselm (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. StAnselm (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 | ” |
- it is evident that Ehrman is a critical scholar. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Darrell L. Bock are not critical scholars and there statements are not sufficient to refute/oppose Ehrman's claims. To refute Ehrman's claim (the one we are discussing about), we need critical scholars' statements and not any other. Plus, critical scholarship is a defined term and I could easily find sources for that too! Regards—UY Scuti Talk 11:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do we have consensus? If no, please mention your concerns in under 24 hours. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 17:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, we don't have consensus, and we are just now coming to the heart of the dispute. The Cargill quote is from a blog post. We don't need other "critical scholars" to refute Ehrman's claim; we need reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and removed the Cargill quote from the article per WP:BLPSPS. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do we have consensus? If no, please mention your concerns in under 24 hours. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 17:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- it is evident that Ehrman is a critical scholar. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Darrell L. Bock are not critical scholars and there statements are not sufficient to refute/oppose Ehrman's claims. To refute Ehrman's claim (the one we are discussing about), we need critical scholars' statements and not any other. Plus, critical scholarship is a defined term and I could easily find sources for that too! Regards—UY Scuti Talk 11:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@StAnselm: If the blog post doesn't work, a quick Google can prove Ehrman is indeed a critical scholar. One example is this, where Ehrman is one of the heroes of textual criticism as stated by Daniel B. Wallace. You are missing something here. 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. It is the view point of critical scholars and it is theirs, unless someone from the community itself is making a different viewpoint or refuting that particular viewpoint. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 18:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- But in some sources, textual criticism (which is Ehrman's field) is sharply distinguished from historical criticism. (The latter is traditionally "higher criticism"; the former "lower criticism"). StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see that the words higher criticism and lower criticism only mean the way both the criticisms look at the text. And I see no issues with mentioning the viewpoint as that of textual critical scholars. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 19:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- But in some sources, textual criticism (which is Ehrman's field) is sharply distinguished from historical criticism. (The latter is traditionally "higher criticism"; the former "lower criticism"). StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@StAnselm: If the blog post doesn't work, a quick Google can prove Ehrman is indeed a critical scholar. One example is this, where Ehrman is one of the heroes of textual criticism as stated by Daniel B. Wallace. You are missing something here. 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. It is the view point of critical scholars and it is theirs, unless someone from the community itself is making a different viewpoint or refuting that particular viewpoint. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 18:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bart Ehrman, The New Testament - A Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford, 1997 is a work in higher criticism. Being specialized in lower criticism does not mean that he wouldn't write books and articles of higher criticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that Cargill's view fails BLP policy and therefore is not allowed in the article does not imply that it wouldn't be the notable opinion of a scholar. BLP says that even self-published sources written by scholars should not be allowed as biographical references, it does not claim that they would be all worthless. I understand the reason for safeguards when writing biographies, but at the same time I respect the right of scholars to voice their views about others. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ehrman's TTC course on the historical Jesus can be seen as higher criticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Lets only discuss about the article in question. Doing some research I came to know that Ehrman also does higher criticism. So, I see no issues mentioning the viewpoint as that of critical scholars in general. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 06:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: If Ehrman's version of "critical scholarship" were to be applied with even the slightest consistency, we would have to reject most historical events because hardly any sources are backed up with the type of evidence that Ehrman demands for the Bible, and virtually no historical sources are free from variation (which he views as fatal contradiction). Again, this type of argument is yet another version of the foolish 19th century claim that the Babylonians and Assyrians never existed because they're in the Bible. Absolutely no one believes that claim any more, and Ehrman and his fellow travelers are just the latest manifestation of this method of thinking. One way around this problem would be to find sources that are neutral, which Ehrman certainly isn't. I think many secular historians take a fairly neutral approach to this, and are more likely to apply a consistent methodology rather than creating an unfair litmus test only for the books that were incorporated into the Bible.
- Or we could just go with your original suggested solution. GBRV (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, on this particular point, there is no reason to suppose Ehrman is a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@GBRV: There's something you are missing too. We are not trying to establish neutral view, say, the historical accounts of Jesus are considered unreliable by one and all. Rather we are only mentioning the view point of a community (Ehrman and his fellow travelers). That maybe biased or unbiased and that doesn't matter at all until we attribute the viewpoint to critical scholars. It's an academic consensus and a significant viewpoint. And per WP:DUE and WP:RS/AC, it's valid to mention that view as the view of the critical scholarly community. As of now, my earlier proposal has gone void. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 09:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: You've got to be more specific than that. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 09:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we've been through all this before. His claim has been questioned by other biblical scholars on the basis of his slippery use of language. It's definitely a notable claim (because it's been critiqued in a book) but it needs to be attributed. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: As I said before, that notable claim must be refuted by a critical scholar and not just any scholar. The sources you gave were written by the scholars who were technically opposite parties, and that doesn't make his statement void or biased. That's a valid claim of what critical scholars think and unless refuted by someone from the critical scholarly community itself, there's no need for attribution. At this point I have a strong feeling that Ehrman's claim must be mentioned without attribution. If I see no further convincing statements on why Ehrman's claim should be attributed, I'll be closing this case as unsuccessful with the statement on what has not been agreed. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 10:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- On which policy do you base this? Just because Ehrman is a critical scholar, it doesn't follow that he is an authority on what "critical scholars" generally believe. In any case, I'm not sure that there is such a thing as the "critical scholarly community"; there is certainly a "biblical scholarly community" - the Society of Biblical Literature. As an organization, it is (to a greater or lesser degree) committed to "critical scholarship", but that refers more to the published work than to the people, and the SBL has a range of members. But the point is: Ehrman seems to be using the phrase in a slippery way to exclude those with whom he disagrees. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: As I said before, that notable claim must be refuted by a critical scholar and not just any scholar. The sources you gave were written by the scholars who were technically opposite parties, and that doesn't make his statement void or biased. That's a valid claim of what critical scholars think and unless refuted by someone from the critical scholarly community itself, there's no need for attribution. At this point I have a strong feeling that Ehrman's claim must be mentioned without attribution. If I see no further convincing statements on why Ehrman's claim should be attributed, I'll be closing this case as unsuccessful with the statement on what has not been agreed. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 10:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we've been through all this before. His claim has been questioned by other biblical scholars on the basis of his slippery use of language. It's definitely a notable claim (because it's been critiqued in a book) but it needs to be attributed. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
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]
This also fails BLP, but it is a valuable insight: Markos thinks that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but this would become false when the Bible is considered "in modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms". I would argue that critical scholarship is defined by "modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms", i.e. the way historians write history for at least a century. So debunking the Bible isn't surprising and not even to a small extent contrary to what ordinary historians do. This is recognized even by the Evangelical side of the dispute, which proclaims inerrancy of the Bible because they think that fideism trumps reason. To be sure, they do not reject reason but use it as ancilla theologiae. In the end, I agree that we have failed to agree that the quoted reliable sources speak in the name of mainline/critical Bible scholars, even if I have to admit that different people define "critical scholars" differently. I have offered sources from both sides of the dispute which agree that critical scholars disparage or debunk the nativity narratives. So, that specific use of "critical scholars" is common to both sides of the dispute: both sides agree upon who counts as a critical scholar and upon what critical scholars think of the nativity stories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Looks like I was indeed right in using the term critical scholarly community. Ehrman is a reliable (& notable) source. Per WP:RS/AC he's directly mentioning what other critical scholars think—The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. And his statement satisfies this policy and hence attribution is not required. You can give me one source from a critical scholar which states otherwise and (or) refutes this statement. And that will be enough to attribute his statement to him. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 03:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, you weren't right - I followed that link, and I only see about 30 results. (As opposed to, say, 300 for "feminist scholarly community" and 400 for "evangelical scholarly community".) Only a handful of those are referring to biblical studies, and one of those (Sanders), seems to be ironic: "the student who wants credentials in the critical scholarly community". Anyway, as I've said several times now, I reject the idea that Ehrman is a reliable source (on this particular issue) so our dispute resolution seems to have reached an impasse. StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Section break
- 30 sources using that word is not enough? Will easily suffice multiple reliable sourcing requirement of Wikipedia. And you are yet to provide a valid reasoning on why Ehrman is not a reliable source. I won't be escalating this case to the Mediation Committee without seeing a valid reason. But, are the participants willing to have an RfC? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 04:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: StAnselm already pointed out the problem of using a phrase like "critical scholar" because Ehrman is defining it in a way that suits his own agenda and basically requires agreement with his own conclusions (or at least his unusual demand for nearly impossible standards of evidence for anything in the Bible). The actual "historical-critical method" does not require a specific conclusion or ideology, nor does it require inflated standards only for one historical source; but rather it is a general methodology in which the evidence shapes the conclusions and the standard of evidence is the same for each source. So if we use the actual standard definition, then there are plenty of scholars who disagree with Ehrman.
- Tgeorgescu's quote from Louis Markos is misleading for a number of reasons. I don't think Markos is agreeing that "critical scholars" (a term he never uses in that quote) agree with Ehrman; nor, I suspect, is it likely that he's claiming that his own viewpoint would be debunked by reason. I think what he's probably saying is that the methods Ehrman is using are derived from an "Enlightenment" mentality which always dismisses the supernatural out of hand based on the personal assumption that it can't exist, therefore there cannot be any evidence for it; while also using a method of verification which constantly shifts as new evidence is discovered (like the evidence which finally proved even to skeptics that the Babylonians and Assyrians existed). But regardless of what Markos meant, it certainly isn't true that Ehrman is doing "what ordinary historians do", because the differences which he thinks are fatal contradictions are far more easily explained than many of the differences between eyewitness accounts for other historical events. "What ordinary historians do" in such cases is to patiently try to find a way to piece the different parts together in a manner that makes sense, but that's not what Ehrman is doing. Tgeorgescu once tried to excuse this by saying that people like Ehrman don't need to harmonize Biblical accounts because they believe that these accounts aren't historical and therefore there's no need to harmonize anything, but that's pretty much the definition of a circular argument: they assume these aren't accurate accounts, therefore there's no need to harmonize them, therefore they conclude that they can't be harmonized, therefore they can't be accurate. In any event, as I and StAnselm keep saying, you can't establish Ehrman's claim about his own theories' acceptance just based upon his own claim itself. Can't we go with a compromise ? GBRV (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GBRV: What you are telling is that Ehramn is different from other critical scholars and he defines his own ways?
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)- But once again, why does it have to be a critical scholar? Why won't any reliable source do? StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's a strong reason why I said that. I've said that earlier and I repeat.
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)- But who decides who is in which community? StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- As you see from the quote from the Christian apologists above, they state that critical scholars disparage the virgin birth in Bethlehem. So, both sides to the dispute identify "critical scholars" as being the same group, having a different view than apologists have. The issue is complicated that some apologists pretend to wear the critical scholar hat, by which they simply mean they do Bible scholarship in service of apologetics. In respect to harmonizations, of course some have tried to harmonize the Bible and Ehrman says about that that harmonizing certain passages requires far fetched explanations, suggesting that the whole harmonization endeavor is at least dubious. And he said the whole point of listing errors and contradictions is not bashing the Bible as being unworthy of faith, but making the point that each author of the Bible has his own theology, different from the theologies of other authors of the Bible. As in mathematics, one may safely analyze the specific theology of a specific Bible author after the point has been made that different authors have different theologies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: I think the entire "critical scholar" issue is beside the point, even if the term could be given an agreed-upon definition (which is itself problematic, as StAnselm has pointed out). There are other relevant groups of scholars that could also be mentioned in the article (e.g. general historians rather than Biblical scholars). So why are we fixated on "critical scholars", (whatever that term may happen to mean) ? I'd rather go with your original suggestion to mention what several groups and individual authors have said (X believes A, etc) rather than trying to come to an agreement what the "consensus among critical scholars" might be. GBRV (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- As you see from the quote from the Christian apologists above, they state that critical scholars disparage the virgin birth in Bethlehem. So, both sides to the dispute identify "critical scholars" as being the same group, having a different view than apologists have. The issue is complicated that some apologists pretend to wear the critical scholar hat, by which they simply mean they do Bible scholarship in service of apologetics. In respect to harmonizations, of course some have tried to harmonize the Bible and Ehrman says about that that harmonizing certain passages requires far fetched explanations, suggesting that the whole harmonization endeavor is at least dubious. And he said the whole point of listing errors and contradictions is not bashing the Bible as being unworthy of faith, but making the point that each author of the Bible has his own theology, different from the theologies of other authors of the Bible. As in mathematics, one may safely analyze the specific theology of a specific Bible author after the point has been made that different authors have different theologies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- But who decides who is in which community? StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's a strong reason why I said that. I've said that earlier and I repeat.
- But once again, why does it have to be a critical scholar? Why won't any reliable source do? StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GBRV: What you are telling is that Ehramn is different from other critical scholars and he defines his own ways?
- 30 sources using that word is not enough? Will easily suffice multiple reliable sourcing requirement of Wikipedia. And you are yet to provide a valid reasoning on why Ehrman is not a reliable source. I won't be escalating this case to the Mediation Committee without seeing a valid reason. But, are the participants willing to have an RfC? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 04:35, 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)
- UY Scuti: "critical scholars" would represent a significant group if the term was defined in an objective manner, rather than just the definition used by a couple of partisan authors. As StAnselm pointed out, Ehrman's use of the term has been disputed for good reasons. GBRV (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- What do you say @PiCo and Tgeorgescu:? We'll settle with the attribution? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 11:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I support rendering the claim with attribution, the only question is to whom should it be attributed, since it is not just the view of these two or three scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: To address Tgeorgescu's request that these viewpoints need to be attributed to more than just a few authors: we could phrase it something like "Many [or "most" etc] critical scholars, such as X, Y and Z, argue that...." GBRV (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti, thanks for inviting my comment on a formula for closure/consensus. but I've taken very little part in this debate and in any case I'm too busy with the real world to focus on this - so I'll bow out. I would say, though, that this seems to drag on and on - is there no end in sight? PiCo (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @PiCo: None that I can see. @Tgeorgescu and GBRV: I'd say, if an author's opinions is generally considered reliable, and a particular statement of his/her doesn't have supporting multiple reliable sources, then we can attribute it to the author. It is not necessary to attribute a opinion piece to multiple authors. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 13:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I got tired of this dispute, so I would now agree with attributing the claims to these authors. Under the reservation that if I find a source like mentioned upon [12] I will bluntly apply WP:RS/AC, without compromise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @PiCo: None that I can see. @Tgeorgescu and GBRV: I'd say, if an author's opinions is generally considered reliable, and a particular statement of his/her doesn't have supporting multiple reliable sources, then we can attribute it to the author. It is not necessary to attribute a opinion piece to multiple authors. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 13:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti, thanks for inviting my comment on a formula for closure/consensus. but I've taken very little part in this debate and in any case I'm too busy with the real world to focus on this - so I'll bow out. I would say, though, that this seems to drag on and on - is there no end in sight? PiCo (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: To address Tgeorgescu's request that these viewpoints need to be attributed to more than just a few authors: we could phrase it something like "Many [or "most" etc] critical scholars, such as X, Y and Z, argue that...." GBRV (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I support rendering the claim with attribution, the only question is to whom should it be attributed, since it is not just the view of these two or three scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- What do you say @PiCo and Tgeorgescu:? We'll settle with the attribution? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 11:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: This case will be closed in a span of 24 hours if no further opposing arguments are brought up. The final consensus is as follows; If an author's
opinionstatement 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. (@StAnselm and GBRV::Oppose it if you feel something is wrong). Regards—UY Scuti Talk 18:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like this - mostly. But what does it mean for an opinion to be reliable? We normally talk about notable (or significant, or whatever) opinions, and reliable claims/statements. Do you mean, "If an author's statements are generally considered reliable..."? Secondly, I agree with the conclusion, but of course I don't accept that Ehrman's claims about scholarly consensus are "generally considered reliable" - so I'm not sure it helps us all that much towards a final solution. StAnselm (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: I've appended it and I did mean what you said. And for Ehrman, or any claim of a single author, I gave this For something to be established as fact (be it academic consensus, evangelical scholars' consensus or any consensus), multiple reliable sources are required. Isn't that supposed to be a solution? Does that fix the issue? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: Just to clarify the last sentence ("For something to be established as fact..." etc); does that mean that if several authors claim that their own viewpoint is supported by other academics, it would justify using their view as the academic consensus and stating it as fact? If so, then that's exactly what StAnselm and I have objected to. If that's not what it means, that what is the intended meaning? GBRV (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @GBRV: When there are opposing viewpoints from among the group, then it has to be attributed to their authors. When there are no opposing viewpoints (among the group), and there are multiple reliable sources (from that group) claiming that something is a consensus among that group, then it should be mentioned as a fact (among the group). But claiming that something is the view of all the scholars, can be refuted by anyone and if refuted, should be attributed to them. I'm not sure if there is something I can change there? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 06:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: Just to clarify the last sentence ("For something to be established as fact..." etc); does that mean that if several authors claim that their own viewpoint is supported by other academics, it would justify using their view as the academic consensus and stating it as fact? If so, then that's exactly what StAnselm and I have objected to. If that's not what it means, that what is the intended meaning? GBRV (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: I've appended it and I did mean what you said. And for Ehrman, or any claim of a single author, I gave this For something to be established as fact (be it academic consensus, evangelical scholars' consensus or any consensus), multiple reliable sources are required. Isn't that supposed to be a solution? Does that fix the issue? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like this - mostly. But what does it mean for an opinion to be reliable? We normally talk about notable (or significant, or whatever) opinions, and reliable claims/statements. Do you mean, "If an author's statements are generally considered reliable..."? Secondly, I agree with the conclusion, but of course I don't accept that Ehrman's claims about scholarly consensus are "generally considered reliable" - so I'm not sure it helps us all that much towards a final solution. StAnselm (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: Any more opposes? And another 24 hour span. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 14:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, I failed to find the strongest sources for the WP:RS/AC claim, as suggested by PiCo. I have only found this: John Barton; John Muddiman (6 September 2001). The Oxford Bible Commentary. OUP Oxford. p. 445. ISBN 978-0-19-875500-5.
"(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)- @Tgeorgescu: GBRV and StAnselm are not satisfied with Ehrman's use of the word critical scholars. Unless there are other sources from critical scholars, stating the same view (given there is no opposition among themselves), I think we should settle on with the attribution. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: I accept the current proposal, although it would be nice to have a requirement that an uninvolved third-party source would be needed for establishing a consensus, rather than an author describing his own theory. GBRV (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- @GBRV: Lets solve this once and for all. Who do you think a third party should be to verify the consensus among critical/evangelical scholars?—UY Scuti Talk 11:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: I accept the current proposal, although it would be nice to have a requirement that an uninvolved third-party source would be needed for establishing a consensus, rather than an author describing his own theory. GBRV (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: GBRV and StAnselm are not satisfied with Ehrman's use of the word critical scholars. Unless there are other sources from critical scholars, stating the same view (given there is no opposition among themselves), I think we should settle on with the attribution. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, I failed to find the strongest sources for the WP:RS/AC claim, as suggested by PiCo. I have only found this: John Barton; John Muddiman (6 September 2001). The Oxford Bible Commentary. OUP Oxford. p. 445. ISBN 978-0-19-875500-5.
- Volunteer note: This case will be closed in 12 hours (as successful). Regards—UY Scuti Talk 04:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: A third-party source would be someone who isn't directly involved. GBRV (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- @GBRV: Give me an example please. BTW, since everyone has accepted the proposal, my 12 hour span stands and the case will be closed as such. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 06:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- UY Scuti: A third-party source would be someone who isn't directly involved. GBRV (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2015 (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:Southern strategy#Oct_2015_edits_to_lead
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.
|
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
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/w/index.php?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.
|
Talk:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd
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)
|
Talk:Domestic violence
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)
|