Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 97

Summary of dispute by nawabmalhi

Barlas discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Timurid dynasty (Persian: تیموریان), self-designated Gurkānī ^[1][2][3] (Persian: گوركانى), was a Sunni Muslim Persianate^[4][5] dynasty of Turco-Mongol lineage^[5][6][7][8] that ruled over modern-day Iran, the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, much of Central Asia, as well as parts of contemporary Pakistan, Syria, India, Anatolia. The dynasty was founded by Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century.......................

The origin of the Timurid dynasty goes back to the Mongol tribe known as Barlas, who were remnants of the original Mongol army of Genghis Khan.^[5][9][10] After the Mongol conquest of Central Asia, the Barlas settled in what is today southern Kazakhstan, from Shymkent to Taraz and Almaty, which then came to be known for a time as Moghulistan – "Land of Mongols" in Persian – and intermingled to a considerable degree with the local Turkic and Turkic-speaking population, so that at the time of Timur's reign the Barlas had become thoroughly Turkicized in terms of language and habits

Additionally, by adopting Islam, the Central Asian Turks and Mongols adopted the Persian literary and high culture^[11] which had dominated Central Asia since the early days of Islamic influence. Persian literature was instrumental in the assimilation of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture.^[12]--Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever

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

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

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

Comment: Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever

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

Comment: Irrelevant and does not speak to ethnicity whatsoever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

@Mdann52 Thank you for your consideration.

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

Proposed solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mdann52 @Nawabmalhi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mdann52 @Nawabmalhi

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mdann52 @Nawabmalhi

Nawabmalhi it does not matter what the modern sources were using the "Secret History of the Mongols" for - The 'Secret History of the Mongols" ITSELF IS A SOURCE THAT MENTIONS BARLAS WITHOUT MENTIONING THE TIMURIDS AS I SAID VERY, VERY CLEARLY. IT IS CLEAR YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THIS BOOK WHICH IS A MUCH TREASURED SOURCE ON THE MONGOLS, AND FROM WHICH MUCH IS QUOTED BY MANY. IT MENTIONS THE BARLAS WITHOUT MENTIONING THE TIMURIDS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ASKED ME TO SHOW, WHICH IS NOT EVEN RELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND BUT WHICH I SHOWED CLEARLY ANYWAY. NOW YOU INTRODUCE A NEW FACET, THE IMPORTANCE OR LACK OF IMPORTANCE OF THE BARLAS CLAN WITH OR WITHOUT THE TIMURIDS- THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR ETHNICITY AND HOW THEY ARE DESCRIBED. YOU ARE PLAIN WRONG AND YOUR ARGUMENTS MAKE NO SENSE AND DO NOT FLOW. ANYONE READING THIS CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES. AGAIN YOU MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT WAS SAID, PRESENT IT OUT OF CONTEXT, ADDRESS NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE, AND TRY TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE WITH IRRELEVANT THINGS YOU HAVE CREATED ALL ON YOUR OWN. LET'S NOT TRY TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE OVER AND OVER AND OVER.Jebenoyon (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jebenoyon Let me explain again: Mention of the Barlas ancestor does not signify any importance of Barlas since the author of the western book links the ancestor to the Barlas clan (Not Secret History of the Mongols (full book)) and the Barlas are not mentioned in the text specifically, so you have not shown any source that mentions Barlas and not Timurids. The source you are using to quote (Secret History of the Mongols) FROM is about Timur and Timurids--Nawabmalhi (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2014

@-NawabmalhiAnd Let me also explain again, in fact let me show exactly what I said:

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

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

This is what I said.

Then I went ON TO SAY, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE PRECEDING:

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

"According to the Secret History of the Mongols, written during the reign of Ögedei Khan [r. 1229-1241], the Barlas shared ancestry with the Borjigin, the imperial clan of Genghis Khan and his successors, and other Mongol clans. The leading clan of the Barlas traced its origin to Qarchar Barlas,[1] head of one of Chagatai's regiments. Qarchar Barlas was a descendant of the legendary Mongol warlord Bodonchir (Bodon Achir; Bodon'ar Mungqaq), who was also considered a direct ancestor of Genghis Khan.[5]

The fact that the source that refers to the "Secret History of the Mongols" in this particular article is the reference below, and is a book on Timur, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS IS ABOUT TIMUR, AND THE QUOTE ABOVE DIRECTLY SAYS THE BARLAS ARE MENTIONED IN THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS, WHICH DOES NOT MNTION TIMUR BECAUSE HE DID NOT EVEN EXIST THEN, AND WHICH I HAVE READ AND YOU CLEARLY HAVE NOT!

1. B.F. Manz, The rise and rule of Tamerlan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989, p. 28: "... We know definitely that the leading clan of the Barlas tribe traced its origin to Qarchar Barlas, head of one of Chaghadai's regiments ... These then were the most prominent members of the Ulus Chaghadai: the old Mongolian tribes — Barlas, Arlat, Soldus and Jalayir ..."

5. René Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, Rutgers University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-81... (p.409)

The above clearly shows the Barlas ARE MENTIONED IN THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS AND THE TIMURIDS ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS SO YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG. WHY CAN YOU NOT ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG AND WHY DO YOU KEEP ON ARGUING CHILDISHLY? THIS MATTER IS OVER BUT I WILL NOT LET YOU KEEP SAYING WRONG THINGS AND GETTING AWAY WITH THEM AS LONG AS THIS PAGE IS OPEN. AND NONE OF THIS MATTERS ANYWAY, IT IS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF YOUR STYLE WHICH IS CLEARLY APPARENT! Jebenoyon (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution

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

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

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.

Summary of dispute by 174.141.182.82

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

When I noticed this change yesterday, I reverted^[1] to the status quo that stood for over a year since that RM discussion and started discussion on the Talk page. He has since repeatedly reinstated his changes. My position is that the changes made a couple weeks ago treat the title as if it does not include quotation marks when the consensus of the move request was that it in fact does, and that per WP:STATUSQUO the nested quote marks should remain as they were for over a year while they're debated. I feel I have politely and repeatedly asked this editor to respect these points and to seek consensus, and he has repeatedly refused on all counts.

Summary of dispute by Edokter

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

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

"Heroes" (David Bowie song) discussion

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

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

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

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

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

So… is anyone willing to help? I have no idea how long these things usually go before a volunteer takes them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take this over to WT:MOS, where you may find editors who are more knowledgable than us. If you wish, I can close this without prejudice to reopening if that discussion gets anywhere? Alternatively, you could post a comment over there and ask a few of them to comment here. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

All right, Edokter and I have both posted over there and directed them to the article Talk. I think you can feel free to close this for now. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by WattleBird

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

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

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

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

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

You came to a conclusion based upon vague wording

In which Davejohnsan replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by 108.226.145.151

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

Summary of dispute by Koala15

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

Summary of dispute by Davejohnsan

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

Summary of dispute by Spongey253

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

Summary of dispute by KYLE.

As per FOX press release, the season (10) premier airs September 14th 2014 ^{[AD 1]}.

As per show runner Matt Weitzman & the information from the 2014 ComicCon panel, the show moves to TBS on October 30th & then regularly airs on Mondays. The episodes that air October 30th on, are part of Season 10. ^{[AD 2][AD 3]} KYLE (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I don't mean to be rude but several of the individuals involved in this debate, myself included, have been wondering what the hold up is as far as receiving input from uninvolved parties. I understand this debate is rather convoluted, but if we could have some input from uninvolved parties, that be much appreciated. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Sitush

The reporter of this dispute is new to Wikipedia and is confused about issues such as verifiability, reliable sources and neutrality. They are also confused about talk pages, as exemplified by the claim that I had deleted their comment on my talk page when in fact I had replied to it both politely and in reasonable detail. Since filing their report, they have both opened a discussion at Talk:Shudra and replied on my talk page. There is nothing to do here or, at least, not yet. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute by Spark121212

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.

Summary of dispute by Thomas.W

This is ridiculous. Thompsonshep started adding home made word-for-word translations (probably made via Google Translate or similar) into foreign languages of the names of various cities, states and countries, adding them to those articles, languages that are of no relevance whatsoever in the articles in question. Such as a Chinese name on San Fransisco, names in Dutch, Swedish and Italian on New Jersey, in German on Kazakhstan, and so on. Edits that were promptly reverted by me and several other editors. I also issued appropriate warnings since they didn't stop, with a customised message telling them that we don't add names in other languages than English and whatever languages are official in the city, state or country in question. A message that was also added in an edit summary by another editor who reverted Thompsonshep. The last edit in that series was this redo of a previously reverted edit on New Jersey, again adding machine translations into Dutch, Swedish and Italian, but now as "native name" in the infobox. And today I noticed that they had added a machine translation into French of the article name on French and Indian War, claiming that it's called "Guerre française et indienne", when the actual name of that war in French is "Guerre de la Conquête" (as can be easily seen by following the Interwiki link). Which I pointed out to them in this message on their talk page, a message they have now removed. So it's not a content dispute, just a simple case of disruptive editing by Thompsonshep. Which is all I intend to say about it since I have more important/interesting things to do than this cr*p. Thomas.W ^talk 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

user talk:Thomas.W discussion

Hello. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. Secondly, please respect both parties and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct and issues concerning user conduct should be taken elsewhere. Attempts to discuss user conduct will not be entertained. Be sure to focus the discussion on content only.

With that in mind, let's move onto the discussion. It looks like the conflict is over the addition of article subjects in foreign languages such as the edits here: , , , and . Concerning this dispute, it appears that WP:NCGN is the most appropriate guideline for this conflict, particularly the second section of General guidelines. Can both parties agree on this or suggest an alternative policy or guideline? KJ ^Discuss? 06:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Maurice Flesier

Talk:Turkish presidential_election,_2014 discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Deb

Summary of dispute by

May 22 discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by VolunteerMarek

Just a quick note for now: it's not true that " After an intense discussion ... a compromise was reached". Rather sheer exhaustion in the face of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and tendentious editing set in, and editors just gave up, having better things to do. There was no compromise, the article retained its problems which were not solved. The so called "stable version" is the one with all the issues. Like many articles on Wikipedia. And just to remind everyone - there's no presumption or bias in favor of status quo, hence any arguments based on "stable versions" are spurious. Indeed, such arguments go against the very spirit of Wikipedia which is supposed to be a dynamic, ever evolving, and ever improving encyclopedia.

My edits substantially improved the article and were explained in detail on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MyMoloboaccount

Herkus is incorrect in stating that there was a "compromise"-the article was simply left alone. As to part to me "not liking" certain things, indeed I don't believe that sources like Werner Conze or Theodor Schieder both of whom were dedicated Nazis propagating ideas of German supremacy, nationalism and ethnic cleansing and genocide against Poles should be used as sources for articles about Polish-German history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #blanket reverts discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Avril (singer) discussion

24 hour closing notice-- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has been active on WP but so far has chosen not to participate here. I've put a second notice on their talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• I make it a practice to ignore editors who post repeated demands on my talk page over short periods of time. Note that the complainant began complaining about being ignored 22 minutes after his second post to my talk page, after I'd responded to their initial post. At no point did they provide any policy-based justification for their claim that what are on their face trashy celebrity journalism pages actually meet BLP sourcing requirements. Instead, they came here and falsely claimed that I had ignored them, even though my immediate, never-substantively-answered, response is evident on my talk page. Badgering editors who make false claims in flimsy disputes are best ignored, not indulged. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • DRN participation is optional. Since you are electing not to participate, I'll close the case. Thanks for the clarification. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by

Talk:John B._Taschner#This_page_should_not_be_deleted_because... discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Moscow Connection

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

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

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

Talk:Babymetal/Archive 2#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 discussion

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

Hi all, I am Mdann52 and I am a volenteer at the noticeboard, however this does not give me any extra powers. I have looked into this, and there appears to be disputes over several section. It will probably be easiest to try and resolve these one-by-one. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The Banner

I am not too hopeful that this process will work. For a long, long time I have tried to persuade the IP self-identified as "Martin" to give proper sources and be civil. But he seems to have more problems with my nationality and the place where I live than care about the needs of the encyclopaedia. See here for a sample. Mr. martin is also claiming to be ("the 'Ascension Parish Burial Ground' expert"). He must show a considerable change in attitude before this is going to work.

By the way, I have to believe that the IP also uses this account: Nitramrekcap.

The Banner talk 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC) But we can always try!

See for the ongoing problem ALL of the references to 'Cambridge Apostles' are referenced in their individual WIKI articles Francis S.!. "Martin" claims here that all are referenced in their individual articles. So I have checked the articles of the five people whose name start with an L: 1 referenced mention, 3 unreferenced mentions and one not mentioned at all. To my opinion, this shows how unreliable the edits of "Martin" are. The Banner talk 00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 2.30.187.230

Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by 11raccoon1

The user Plarem is obviously not happy with LGBT rights in general. He tried to change Zagreb Pride and Split Pride headlines into just Zagreb and Split, and claims the word pride is a LGBT propaganda, and a "liberal" word. Furthermore, he also changed the headline that says "LGBT Prides and other marches" to "Promotion of LGBT issues", claiming that it was one sided and liberal. He also stated that certain citations are needed, even though they already exist at the end of the paragraph "Living condition."

In the introduction he added completely new bit where he talks how same-sex marriage in Croatia is not legal because of the Catholic church. Croatia is a secular country where government and the parliament are responsible for creating new laws. Not the Church. The user also claims that article needs opposition to LGBT rights to make it neutral. I don't understand what sort of opposition does he have in mind? The article talks about opposition to LGBT rights from the outset and throughout. So what is the problem?

The user created the pie chart, using the word. "extremely." The source says people who oppose same-sex marriage feel strongly about it. They are not extremely against, but strongly.

He also insists that Croatian Constitution bans same-sex marriage. Croatian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And that is de jure. The user claims same-sex marriages are banned. It is true that it is not possible to have them, but what I care is what the law says. And that is what I put on Wikipedia. I do not add my personal interpretations of any law. Myself and other people have been working hard on this article, and it seems sad to let somebody destroy it. I am responsible for most of it, and am very happy when people add things, or correct mine if it's constructive. But this is just pointless what the user Plarem is doing. He also said that I should get over the fact "gay propaganda" is not acceptable. I claim that this article is neutral and based on facts. Personal interpretations are not wanted, just like in any other article. I believe this user is doing this as a result of disagreeing with LGBT rights.11raccoon1 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias discussion

1) In regard to constitutional marriage amendment.
While primary source (i.e constitution itself) does not say literally same-sex marriage is banned, the amendment is interpreted in this way by secondary sources. According to Wikipedia policies, the articles should not be based solely on primary sources, reliable secondary sources also should be taken into account. I don't see nothing wrong with Plaren's edits in this area, as long as they are kept in neutral manner.

2) In regard to Public promotion of LGBT issues term.
The term is certainly not neutral. I see this as an attempt to insert personal views to the article. Has anyone heard of this term before? This could qualify as OR. I don't see nothing wrong with the term of Gay Pride or Pride Parade, because these are names used by the organizers. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

However, on the other hand, I don't see the term 'LGBT propaganda' as anything wrong, it is often used, but I was told that it was against WP:NPOV, so I came up with that as a neutral alternative. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your alternative is also against WP:NPOV. Propose something else and try to build consensus before editing. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

3) In regard to the leading section.
In general, I'm ok with expansion of the leading section. In my opinion it's not too big and summarizes (at least some) key points of the article. As for the grammar, I'm not expert, and my English is not perfect. So no comment... Ron 1987 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, I am a volunteer here at the DRN. Welcome. Let me start of by requesting that all editors refrain from further edit warring on the article. That must stop.

My first question is: Why is "Public promotion of LGBT issues" considered non neutral and why do you feel that is original research. It was a header title of a section or subsection not a reference to a group, subject/figure or situation requiring a reference. So lets be clear with that. The word "propaganda" is indeed non neutral.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a much difference between promotion and propaganda. These events are called Pride parades, also on Wikipedia. The Wiki article about it has that name, see Pride parade. I don't see any reason to not to use that name in other articles. He tried similar maneuvers in other articles see , , , Ron 1987 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, getting back to this...my point, the term propaganda is derogatory and should never be used as an encyclopedic description of Promoting LGBT rights. However, that is not even the case here, as this is not about an editor changing a single word like promotion to propaganda. This is a situation where the term "Pride" is being excluded all together for the use of the of a phrase that includes "promotion" and that is unacceptable for the simple reason that it is not an alternative to the definition of a "Pride" event. These are festivals, celebrations and parades that make use of the word, "Pride" the title. it is that simple. The issue here is an editor that has taken it upon themselves to begin what really does look like a campaign to remove terms they "Just don't like" across a wide swath of articles. So, the answer to my question is, "Public promotion of LGBT issues" is considered non neutral when it replaces "Gay/LGBT Pride" because it attempts to define "celebration" as "promotion".

Honestly....this is a clear attempt to frame the verbiage in these articles to fit Russian law against "Gay propaganda" (as is evidenced by the editors first attempt at using the word "propaganda") and seems pretty clear to me. As such, this looks painfully political in nature and the very worst kind of POV. I will say this, when using the term "Pride" we should attempt to qualify its meaning in the section it is used, as a title to a celebration, festival or parade. The reason these celebrations are called "Pride" is because of the nature of the event and its origins as a way to counter the violence of the Stonewall riots where the police of New York City attempted to harass and beat gay men at a local gay bar as well as a counter to the perception that being gay was something to be ashamed of but, instead to be "proud" of. Are Gay Pride parades promotion? No, they are just what they claim to be...a celebration. Plarem attempts to make this a purely promotional event, which it is not.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Building on the sample provided above, I have taken a further look through recent edits by Plarem (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and there is significant evidence of disrupting the Encyclopaedia to prove a point, by inserting "public promotion of LGBT issues" into articles, along with starting multiple discussions arguing that the common term "Pride Parade" is "liberally biased" and incidents of deliberately inflammatory language. At the time of writing not all these changes had been repaired by other editors, presumably as they are so extensive. Plarem appears unwilling or unable to accept the views of multiple other contributors or the current consensus view that "Pride Parade" is (as defined as per the article Pride Parade) a celebration of gay culture, not intended as promotion, propaganda or "homopropaganda", the latter being a neologism that Plarem inserted into an article. Plarem's behaviour is not acceptable, their recent actions appear more than sufficient in terms of incivility, damage and disruption for a block and/or a topic ban.

In support of the above statement, please review the following diffs which are an incomplete sample of Plarem's edits on LGBT related articles over the last 2 days.

• 2014-08-22 22:54 LGBT_rights_in_Croatia - non-civil edit comment: "That's what the lead is for, dumbass"
• 2014-08-22 19:09 Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Croatia - personal attack "I also think he should go back to school, do an English language course, or just shut up."
• 2014-08-22 17:01 LGBT rights in Poland describing an artwork as homopropoganda, an apparent transliteration from a Polish word based on a single op-ed website article without offering a balance of viewpoints, as even expressed in the original op-ed piece.
• 2014-08-22 13:19 LGBT rights in Lithuania
• 2014-08-22 11:13 LGBT rights in Greece
• 2014-08-22 10:06 LGBT rights in Croatia
• 2014-08-22 09:59 LGBT rights in Estonia
• 2014-08-22 09:59 LGBT rights in Sweden
• 2014-08-22 09:59 LGBT rights in Albania
• 2014-08-22 09:58 LGBT rights in Kosovo
• 2014-08-22 09:58 LGBT rights in France
• 2014-08-21 21:28 Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia - introducing "LGBT propaganda" into discussion
• 2014-08-21 14:19 LGBT rights in France edit comment: "Yes, it is a more neutral word for the liberally biased one"
• 2014-08-21 12:43 LGBT rights in Kosovo
• 2014-08-21 12:42 LGBT rights in the United Kingdom
• 2014-08-21 12:40 LGBT rights in the United Kingdom
• 2014-08-21 12:37 LGBT rights in the Netherlands
• 2014-08-21 12:37 LGBT rights in Croatia edit comment: "Public promotion of LGBT issues"
• 2014-08-21 12:34 LGBT rights in the Netherlands
• 2014-08-21 12:30 LGBT rights in Luxembourg
• 2014-08-21 12:27 LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland
• 2014-08-21 12:26 LGBT rights in Guernsey
• 2014-08-21 12:25 LGBT rights in France
• 2014-08-21 12:24 LGBT rights in Belgium
• 2014-08-21 12:20 LGBT rights in Turkey
• 2014-08-21 12:19 LGBT rights in Spain
• 2014-08-21 12:17 LGBT rights in Portugal
• 2014-08-21 12:16 LGBT rights in Montenegro
• 2014-08-21 12:14 LGBT rights in the Republic of Macedonia
• 2014-08-21 12:13 LGBT rights in Italy
• 2014-08-21 12:12 LGBT rights in Greece
• 2014-08-21 11:52 LGBT rights in Cyprus
• 2014-08-21 11:47 LGBT rights in Bulgaria
• 2014-08-21 11:45 LGBT rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• 2014-08-21 11:44 LGBT rights in Albania
• 2014-08-21 11:43 LGBT rights in Sweden
• 2014-08-21 11:41 LGBT rights in Latvia
• 2014-08-21 11:40 LGBT rights in Iceland
• 2014-08-21 11:37 LGBT rights in Estonia
• 2014-08-21 11:36 LGBT rights in Ukraine
• 2014-08-21 11:33 LGBT rights in Moldova
• 2014-08-21 11:31 LGBT rights in Belarus
• 2014-08-21 11:30 LGBT rights in Armenia
• 2014-08-21 11:29 LGBT rights in Switzerland
• 2014-08-21 11:19 LGBT rights in Croatia
• 2014-08-20 12:47 LGBT rights in Poland edit comment: "LGBT propaganda"

My apologies for turning this into a wall of evidence, but I would like to establish that the pattern of problematic edits goes further than the last 2 days, and so have looked into the previous month. The following edits demonstrate tendentious editing and many reverts of the work of other editors in good standing in order to establish both a neologism (homopropaganda, which many are likely to consider highly controversial) and continuously inserting "LGBT propaganda" into articles, as can be seen above this was later adapted to inserting "LGBT promotion" and removing "Pride" or "LGBT movement".

• 2014-08-12 13:36 LGBT rights in Poland changing "LGBT movement" to "LGBT propaganda"
• 2014-07-30 12:06 Sandbox to create a draft of "LGBT propaganda / homopropaganda / homosexual propaganda"
• 2014-07-30 10:19 LGBT rights in Poland Replacing LGBT movement with LGBT propaganda
• 2014-07-29 11:43 LGBT right in Poland reverting "LGBT movement" to "LGBT propaganda" and reinserting "homopropaganda"
• 2014-07-29 11:42 LGBT rights in Poland changing "LGBT movement" to "LGBT propaganda"
• 2014-07-16 10:31 LGBT rights in Poland changing "Pride" to "LGBT propaganda" and inserting "homopropaganda"
• 2014-07-15 16:07 LGBT rights in Poland inserting a section on "LGBT propaganda"

My recommendation is that a topic ban is needed to avoid further disruption to the encyclopaedia and to give Plarem time to reconsider their inappropriate long term disruptive behaviour. If that cannot be done on DRN, I would ask an admin consider taking this forward on behalf of other concerned editors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Fæ, that's pretty impressive. I propose that we let Plarem respond, and then take it from there. I see an AN thread coming up where a topic ban is proposed. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Fæ that a topic ban is needed. Plarem has a history of even more clearly biased edits on LGBT-related articles, such as replacing same-sex marriage with same-sex "marriage" or stating that the LGBT community has, on multiple occasions terrorised Polish public opinion while replacing the header LGBT movement with LGBT terrorism. SPQRobin (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding this evidence to the DRN. Changing Wikipedia articles so that the LGBT movement is re-titled as "LGBT terrorism" I find repugnant and critically damaging to Wikipedia's neutrality. Though articles should represent all significant views, they must be presented neutrally and given an appropriate weight. At this point, I think any experienced admin can draw sensible conclusions from the pattern we find here. --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since the DRN began first I suggest we keep this request open for 24 hours to allow the editor to respond. Should there be no reply within the 24 hr period, I suggest we close this DRN filing as no content dispute, as there is clear consensus on how to handle the text descriptions of "Gay/LGBT Pride" events.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Good Olfactory

• Comment. (I'm not sure why we're here rather than the talk page, but anyway ...) I think that User:Rwsammons just misunderstands how the article (and the sources cited in the article) use the term "folklore". It does not mean that the thing is untrue or not actually believed or taught by Mormon adherents. The boundary between what is "Mormon folklore" and what is "true Mormon doctrine" is fuzzy—there is no bright line separating one from the other, and along this border there is no doubt significant overlap, and it definitely depends on the observer or the adherent. An example of the misunderstanding of this term can be seen in edits such as this one: I find this edit and ones like it to have WP:NPOV issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Mormon folklore discussion

• Hello, I am MrScorch6200, the DRN coordinator. I am neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but I would like to note that I notified User:Good Olfactory of this thread. Also, it doesn't look like this dispute has much talk page discussion, so it is subject to a speedy-close. Cheers! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Kirin13

• First, the false accusation: My "friend" who blocked IP for sockpuppetry (among other issues) was DeltaQuad, with whom, I don't recall ever interacting with before (or after) this issue. IP's statement that "got her friend to block me" implies DQ is abusing his admin and checkuser powers, which are awfully strong accusations. Besides DQ, at least five other admin's reviewed the case and declined IP's justifications. For further info, please see: 1, 2, 3.
• Besides myself & the IP, two other users have joined the discussion. One is nuetral and the other, Metheglyn, supports exclusion - diff. No one except IP1 and IP2 (whom admins judged to be same person) have supported inclusion - see talk page.
• Two of five notes IP is arguing to add are still unsourced after repeated claims that everything is sourced - diff.
• Multiple times compromises were offered to include this info in other sections and explained why this structured table was not a good place for this info. E.g. see 1, 2, 3, 4.
• IP's above argument for inclusion are claims that IP has never sourced. To my knowledge, the 'facts' that these women are training to be midwives and that the family are big homebirth advocates have never been in the article. Yet IP insists on using these 'important facts' as justification to make additions to table that say neither of these 'facts'. If IP has reliable sources (preferable secondary, so we know it's important) for midwives/homebirth advocates facts, then these facts can be added to the appropriate sections, but this is all irrelevant to the edits in question, since IP has never tried to include this info.

Kirin13 (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk: 19 Kids and Counting

Hello. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. Secondly, please respect both parties and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct and issues concerning user conduct should be taken elsewhere. Attempts to discuss user conduct will not be entertained. Be sure to focus the discussion on content only to reach consensus.

With that, let us move onto the conflict. I believe that there are two main problems. The first question is whether there are reliable sources for the information. The second is, assuming that there are adequate sources, how the information should be incorporated into the article. Since the second question is moot if the first question is not resolved, let's cover the sourcing first. User:65.205.13.26, do you have any sources to support the information that you are trying to include? KJ ^Discuss? 10:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

KJ Hello. Thank You for you help with 19K&C article. Homebirths were discussed on numerous episodes of the show. Please give me sometime to find the specific episodes. Written sources are : -NBC's today show interview, -ABC's GMA show interview, -various interviews with homebirth organisations

-their books The Duggars; 20 And Counting , - book A Love That Multiplies

-http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/home-births.html

-http://www.christianpost.com/news/michelle-duggar-experience-helps-a-lot-during-delivery-mom-of-19-says-120899
Midwife training :

-their book Growing Up Duggar

-http://www.christianpost.com/news/michelle-duggar-experience-helps-a-lot-during-delivery-mom-of-19-says-120899/

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8z_9qWekR4

-http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/04/17/19-kids-and-counting-midwife-jill-jana-duggar-baby-video/

-michelle says draw attn to your inner light  : http://www.crossmap.com/blogs/19-kids-and-counting-michelle-duggar-on-teaching-young-adults-about-modesty-5140

I am looking for more. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment on the sources that URL's were provided for:

• duggarsblog.blogspot.com is an unofficial blog by two amateur writers – this is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
• christianpost.com looks like an acceptable source for which children were born by c-section.
• Midwife sources are irrelevant since this info has never been added to article.
• crossmap.com article seems to be completely unrelated to homebirths or midwife training.
• Side note: in general, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (e.g. christianpost.com article) vs. primary sources (e.g. the tv episodes). So looking for the specific tv episodes is unnecessary unless there is no secondary sources.

Kirin13 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So, can we agree that there are enough reliable sources, WP:SELFPUB or secondary, that the information could be cited if it is added to the article? Discussions of specific sources can be made afterwards. KJ ^Discuss? 00:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources for the c-section weren't in question (though no reliable sources for the homebirths of Jinger & Joseph have been provided here which are 2/5 notes he's trying to add). The question has always been where. IP believes it should be in the table or the entire table should be deleted. I believe it doesn't belong in table but can be added in several areas where there are paragraphs about the family history and show plot. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The source is not for the c section. If you read the article in it Michelle says she had homebirths for jinger and josiah. duggarsblog is sanctioned by the duggar family. They have given multiple interviews to teh blog owners ellie/lily and invited ellie/lily to jill's wedding. Again if christianpost was read it says info on homebirths; numerous homebirths. Midwife sources are not irrelevant. Crossmap you are right about; that source is for other info for the article. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

@Kirin13: Since the other editor was blocked, I'm going to close this DR/N case in 24 hours if no one else comments on this case. Are there any loose ends you want to tie up? KJ ^Discuss? 04:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no point to continue this DR/N right now since IP can't reply (and no one else is arguing for this addition). However, we might be back in a month, if IP decides to continue this discussion – like he did after his previous three-week absence.

I am curious, of your opinion/next step, assuming all info can be sourced. I'm still against it being in the table. Between the books, 100+ episodes, news articles, etc. a lot of minute details can be sourced, that doesn't mean that they should be included in Wikipedia. In particular, info only found in primary sources tells me that it's not really important, otherwise there would've been secondary sources. Going to article, there are two sections discussing family history/values/etc. The table, at current state, gives the names, ages, and other relations for the individuals. Adding what kind of birth the individuals had seems like an absurd bit of trivia in comparison.

Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: If User 65 returns and wishes to re-open the DRN discussion, then that's up to the user to decide. Regarding the information, a consensus whether it's WP:FANCRUFT or not is needed. Assuming there is consensus, WP:WHENTABLE states that 'Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context.' So, it should be considered whether the information should be explained using context and prose, or presented without any connotation. I really have no inclination either way. KJ ^Discuss? 09:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by AussieLegend

Talk:Amish Mafia discussion

24-hour closing notice: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. I'd just note that AussieLegend was given notice of this filing, but removed the notice from his talk page with the edit comment "Unnecessary," and continued commenting at the article talk page. I would presume this to mean that he does not care to participate here, as is his right since participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary. This case will be closed if he does not choose to give an opening statement by 19:30 hours UTC on 27 August 2014. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the notice at the top of this page says "editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page" and that has not happened. The discussion at Talk:Amish Mafia had only been open for 30 hours and only 6 posts had been made before BP OMowe chose to move onto DRN, which he did straight after his last post there and befor I had a chance to reply. That really is too early for DRN. As hinted at by TransporterMan, I'm prepared to continue discussing at the talk page but I don't see any need to come here yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.