Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 126

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Nativity of Jesus#Edit war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)
• GBRV (talk · contribs)
• StAnselm (talk · contribs)
• Editor2020 (talk · contribs)
• Rbreen (talk · contribs)
• Good Olfactory (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Summary of dispute by Editor2020

Summary of dispute by Rbreen

Summary of dispute by Good Olfactory

Talk:Nativity of Jesus#Edit war discussion

 Verified - Editors have been notified of discussion. Neither accepting nor declining case. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - As Drcrazy102 notes, the editors have been notified of this discussion, and there has been adequate prior discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case (because I have a point of view, and may choose to participate as an editor). However, in view of the number of editors, and the subtlety of some of the points being discussed, this case may not be resolved in one to two weeks. The parties may want to consider formal mediation. A volunteer who does accept this case maybe should be ready to recommend formal mediation if discussion here is productive but inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Note - Can't this be resolved by finding a RS who says something along the lines "most scholars regard/consider the nativity narratives to be reliable/unreliable"? Surely they exist. There's a recent book by Andrew Lincoln that could be useful. PiCo (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting discussion there on pages 7 and 8. Andrew T. Lincoln definitely deserves an article; I will create it when I get a chance. I'm very busy at the moment finishing off my - ahem - PhD in biblical studies. StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: - Please do not use the dispute summary/overview areas as a discussion/comment section. They are meant to be used to show the perception of the dispute by an individual editor at the point in time when they join this DR/N case.

If you must, use either this discussion section or use the talkpage of the article to discuss/comment on points of contention until this case is accepted, per the message at the top of this section: "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.".

 To DRN volunteers: and

•  Note to participants: - I will accept this case in a few days (18^th or 19^th/10 at the latest) if no other mediator wishes to accept the case. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. (edit conflict) so I hope I restored the conflicted text along with my edit.
•  Volunteer note: Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm JAaron95 and am taking this case for moderation and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. This dispute from what I've seen at the talk page seems to be between GBRV and Tgeorgescu. And I consider them to be essential parties of this discussion, and without them, I'll be unwilling to proceed any further. Other editors who have their names included in the participants' list and who don't have their name there, may chime in at any given time if they are interested. Before going into our discussions, let me point out some basic rules to make this discussion as friction-less as possible. 1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. 2)Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the (Added later) disputed area of the (Added later) article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issue here and not at any other talk pages. 5)Our primary focus is on building the encyclopedia. 5) Since this dispute is related to a religion, I would encourage editors to go through WP:NPOV. Particularly, WP:UNDUE, WP:MNA, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV (even if you have before) 6)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. A page long reply is usually disregarded. Stick to the point and hit the nail on the head. Good luck and Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 05:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, after having my opinion summarily dismissed like this, I guess I've wasted my time making a statement here... StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I sincerely apologize for what has happened here. It's because of the mere fact that I forgot to take your reply into account. And I will be careful in the future. Please feel free to chime in and make your statements. I will take them into account. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the apology. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 19 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, 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".? Is there disputes other than this? If possible, in under five lines, please summarize What are we going to solve here?. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said previously, it is not the text which bothers me, but the removal of references which verify the text. If one removes the best references and keeps the weak ones of course the verification becomes problematic. User:StAnselm stated that I object more to the reason given for removing the references (i.e. the WP:OR claim that Catholic scholars are unable to see errors in the Bible), and what he stated is to some extent true: the given reason is weird. I am prepared to compromise about the text, but references should not be removed for spurious reasons. There are other authors, e.g. Bart Ehrman, who argue that the details between the two nativity stories do not match. He said something like: make a list of the events from each nativity story and compare the two lists. (This would verify the "evident contradictions" claim.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As source see [2], but this is a claim that Ehrman has repeated on many occasions, so more sources could be found for it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Another problem is that User:GBRV does not think that Bible scholars have any authority at all (as writing reliable sources). He thinks that they are somewhere between biased hacks with an ax to grind against Biblical morality and academic fraudsters. (No, I did not make this up: [3].)Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Please keep your comments directed on the content. Portray your view of the content dispute and not the views of other editor(s). Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I should rephrase it: my view is that reputable Bible scholars write authoritative books and articles, and as long as we cannot agree that they are the experts on this subject, no progress could be made. Who else could be cited instead of Bible scholars? Those who decide upon the theology of a certain church speak in the name of that church and its believers, while Bible scholars seek to establish facts acceptable regardless of one's religious beliefs. Of course, conservative Evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree with any statements about the Bible which are not theologically orthodox, so they are by default outside of those accepting such facts, when these contravene their own religious beliefs. E.g. some Evangelical Bible scholars have to sign formal oaths that they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and they get fired if they violate such oaths. In one instance, a scholar teaching medieval philosophy at Wheaton got fired when he converted to Catholicism, since being a Catholic means not being Christian enough according to Wheaton standards. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that scholarship is divided between Evangelical and non-Evangelical (including most major universities and mainline Protestant and Catholic theological seminaries). Mainline Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Jews do not form comparable homogeneous blocks of scholars, so scholarship isn't divided between Catholic and non-Catholic or between Jewish and non-Jewish. According to Peter Enns, there are Evangelical scholars who are ready to embrace modern (i.e. critical) views, especially off the record, see [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several issues, but the main ones are: 1) StAnselm and I have tried to revise the text so that it conforms to Wikipedia's normal practice of stating each POV as the POV of a specific set of authors rather than stating one viewpoint as a Wikipedia-approved fact; but Tgeorgescu kept changing it back by claiming that his view is the indisputable consensus among everyone except a small group of fringe authors. 2) He justifies that claim by claiming that his list of authors are regarded as the foremost experts whose views are considered as indisputable fact, but the only source he can present for that (aside from his own opinion) is a quote from Stephen Harris claiming that Harris' own viewpoint is accepted by virtually everyone else. This is not a neutral third-party source since Harris is talking about his own viewpoint. Tgeorgescu keeps repeating the statement that Harris is an RS, which is not the point.

Regarding Tgeorgescu's mischaracterization of my comments in his post on 17 Oct at 19:38: what I actually said was that some of the authors he was citing as "definitive" were using arguments which few historians would support, such as the authors who base their arguments on recognized fallacies such as the "argumentum ex silentio" fallacy, or the authors who claim that any differences between sources would mean that all of them are fictional (despite the patent fact that the vast majority of eyewitness accounts on any subject inevitably contain differences); or the authors who claim that every written source needs to be backed up with archaeological evidence (despite the fact that hardly any of the details in any written sources are backed up with archaeological evidence, nor do they need to be). If the methods used by these authors were applied with any consistency, we would need to rewrite virtually all of history. I've given some examples on the talk pages for "Nativity of Jesus" and "The Exodus", and so have others.

But note that I never said that ALL Bible scholars in general are using a faulty methodology (as Tgeorgescu seems to be accusing me of), nor did I ever say that only people outside that field should be cited. I was criticizing specific authors, not everyone in that field. GBRV (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think this issue is worth the process here, and I find it hard to see what the problem is with the article now. There was some dispute about the removal of specific scholars, but it seems that three is the right number of representatives. And if that were so, Hans Küng doesn't really belong, as he's more a theologian than a biblical scholar. StAnselm (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

1. I would like to know, exactly what content (you may quote them here) Tgeorgescu wants to add/remove/keep, whose scholarly study/opinion is that, how widely is that accepted, why is the author's opinion (if it is a single opinion) important (include reliable sources to support your claim).
2. What content is not in NPOV per GBRV, why does it violate NPOV, based on what evidence is it a POV?

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)

The dispute is about [5]. I am prepared to keep the text as it now stays, but reintroduce the references. While I admit that Küng reference could be somewhat dated, I would say keep it in order to show that it isn't a particularly novel insight and that the consensus exists for a long time. As a source I offered above Ehrman's blog, it is a claim which Ehrman has repeated for different audiences, other sources would be Misquoting Jesus, p. 10, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 21-22, The New Testament - A Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, p. 101.

"Maurice Casey was one of the best known scholars of the New Testament presently (or more properly, recently) working in the United Kingdom. He was a tireless researcher who devoted his life to a serious and, insofar as this is possible, an independent investigation of the New Testament freed from dogmatic constraints. Or more particularly, to the life of the Historical Jesus. A brief look at recent bibliographic entries wherein he is mentioned makes the point sufficiently:" http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/2014/05/wes388023.shtml

"Instead, this 450th anniversary year of the confessions brought news of the Kung censure. It was a disappointment for ecumenically minded Protestants and Catholics alike -- even for many who personally disagree with Professor Kung's own views about today's many-faceted ecumenical issues. Compounding the concern has been a whole pattern of hearings given by the Vatican to professors and churchmen known for their more liberal interpretations of Catholic faith. ... But although Professor Kung may still be able to teach in Germany, the fact that he has been deprived of his status as an official Roman Catholic theologian leaves some of the more liberal Catholic scholars in America uneasy. They have found it difficult not to feel the implication of events as matters of human rights." http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0403/040368.html

"Tübingen theologian Hans Küng has been the foremost advocate of incorporating such terminology into theology, heuristically inspired by Thomas S. Kuhn’s famous work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. By reconsidering the history of Christianity, not in the more conventional view as a gradual accretionary progression towards ever greater refinement and truth but in terms of revolutionary historical epochal shifts more marked by discontinuity than continuity, Küng sought to more authentically reveal the dynamism in tradition. When a theological paradigmatic mode of understanding no longer seems helpful or plausible due to a shift in cultural context, a new ‘revolutionary’ paradigmatic understanding is needed—a paradigm shift—often marked by upheaval and discontinuity, not merely building upon the previous model but replacing it, though with some continuity. In other words, from the beginning, Christians have had to come to terms with theological understanding anew, reflecting fundamental changes in cultural context, thus resulting not simply in more tradition, but in new and different tradition." https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/doctoraltheses/387/

"Of the various interests pursued by Hans Küng, all his ideas are essentially interconnected because he is, first and foremost, an ecumenical theologian. With his primary focus on ecclesiology, Küng explores the concept of Christian ecumenism, but this concentration expands to include the possibilities of a more global ecumenism. He is very concerned with internal Church reform, but he also emphasizes the need to improve relations with those members outside of the official Church. Küng opens the door to a new global theology, which he says may only be advanced through interreligious dialogue. Küng's reputation is controversial because he seems to be radical, but he is one of the most widely read theologians of contemporary times." http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/kung.htm Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95: I'm not sure where I'm supposed to put my response, so I'll put it here. On the NPOV issue: Stating one side's opinion as a Wikipedia-approved fact is a violation of NPOV. I think this is self-evident, and I think examples have already been given; but I can go into more detail again if needed.

Tgeorgescu has said that he's willing to accept the current version of the disputed paragraph if two citations are restored, and I would accept that so long as the remaining handful of NPOV problems are brought into line with the current version of that paragraph as well (which would need to be done for consistency anyway). There are only two or three other cases in which Wikipedia's own voice is used to claim that one side's viewpoint is irrefutable fact, and these few cases could quickly be brought into line with the version that Tgeorgescu is willing to accept. GBRV (talk) 00:29, 19 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.
@GBRV: You have mentioned this - Stating one side's opinion as a Wikipedia-approved fact is a violation of NPOV. I want to know exactly which sentences/lines that does this. Mentioning one's view (more accurately, quoting), is very different from facts that are reliably sourced (multiple sources of course). We'll try and sort out one non-NPOV line at a time. And please try to keep it brief, so we can get to the point precisely and quickly. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In these matters there will never be a general consensus, because those who defend biblical inerrancy or have a very high view of scripture disagree with everything which contradicts such views. So we may only speak of the consensus of modern/critical scholars (or if you want "liberal"-minded scholars, though not all those smeared as "liberals" are actually liberal, they're just critical scholars and liberal Christians love critical scholarship, even when it's actually written by conservatives, see Liberal Christianity#Liberal Christian exegesis about Noth and Perlitt). I don't claim that what I state here would be Wikipedia policy, but when all major universities teach something for a fact, Wikipedia should reflect this. I don't know precisely if it should bluntly be stated as fact or just claim that it is the majority view. I don't deny that Evangelical scholarship would be notable, nor I want to silence it, but in general it is not the majority view (Evangelicals represent a minority of all Christians and Evangelical scholars are a minority of all Biblical scholars). That's my take on NPOV matters. About the difference between theologians and Bible scholars, I admit that it is a difference, however in practice theologians may bear the hat of historian and write as historians. E.g. Bart Ehrman was schooled as theologian and became a historian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

There was no discussion as far as I can see; the insertion of the extra scholars was a very recent addition here. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95: Under the "Critical analysis" heading, one paragraph begins with the statement: "Scholars see the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus, and probably not historical." This states the matter as a settled fact (as if all scholars feel that way), even though the very next sentence admits that there are scholars who take the opposite viewpoint. So these two sentences contradict each other, and the first fails to state each POV as the opinion of one group. I think there are more cases like this in the article, but I'd have to look more thoroughly.

Since I'm not supposed to reply directly to Tgeorgescu here, I assume I should respond to points he's raised by addressing my response to you? He has again stated (today) that "all major universities" and the vast majority of scholars agree with the viewpoint he thinks should be emphasized, but he still hasn't proven that. He has only presented a handful of examples of authors. College textbooks which I've seen tend to treat the Bible like any other ancient source, and I doubt very many textbooks even mention the nativity itself (the subject of this article) so how can he claim that "all major universities" teach a particular view about something they rarely teach at all? It's also misleading, for reasons that might be best illustrated by using an analogy: most major universities DO have plenty of Postmodernist professors who teach "Science Studies" classes which claim that science is fraudulent (e.g. Priya Venkatesan's famous class), and likewise, academic journals are filled to the brim with Postmodernist articles attacking science, but that doesn't establish a meaningful "academic consensus" because these guys are using arguments that most people laugh at. WP articles on science are based on the standard view that the scientific method is a proper way to determine truth, regardless of the endless attacks on science in the universities. Many of the authors which Tgeorgescu has cited also use arguments which are recognized fallacies (such as the "argumentum ex silentio" fallacy), so why are these guys the foremost experts? He hasn't provided any proof other than the fact that some of them claim that most other scholars support their own viewpoint, but that's a case of partisan authors hyping their own opinions. GBRV (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you quote from the article is very poorly worded for a start - I guess it meant to say "Scholars see the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate and probably unhistorical genealogies of Jesus." But I have problem with the word "scholars", since it makes it sounds like "scholars in general"/the scholarly consensus; that may be true, but I don't know if the references back that up. And do all the scholars cited talk about the accounts being a-/unhistorical? I've been trying to find the Wright reference (no pun intended) but I'm not able to read it. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Well, lets try to workout a local consensus if a general consensus can't be built. I take issues with you telling something related to religion as fact. Because, if it is a fact, it should have overwhelming evidence (reliable sources). If we don't have that kinda sources, it is just the consensus/opinion of the academic community (if it is indeed taught in universities). Please can you give me the overwhelming sources which say something as fact? Thanks and regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@GBRV: To address the first NPOV issue, are you okay with the wording that StAnselm used? Tgeorgescu, are you okay with that too? And for the use of scholars in general, well, we'll have to go through the sources. To address the second issue, which you have have directed to Tgeorgescu, by colleges you mean 'all colleges'? I don't think so. While there are some that teach with the Bible as their primary source rather than science, there are (should be) genuine colleges which teach neutrally. When seeing colleges as a whole, we disregard individual biased authors/professors and when it comes to religious topics, to make something a fact, college sources are not sufficient per se, rather we need scientific evidence written by non-biased authors. According to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, when someone's opinion (rather than a whole community) is mentioned, it should be attributed and mentioning their opinion with attribution is not a violation of NPOV. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have direct evidence that the lack of historicity of the nativity stories gets taught in all major universities. However I have some quotes about what in general gets taught as fact in Bible scholarship at major universities:

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

"True, many universities also engage in postmodern approaches that are critical of historical criticism (e.g., Feminist studies), but you’d still be hard pressed to find academic programs in Bible that don’t take as their axiomatic starting point a historical critical approach to the Bible. Look at course descriptions on the internet of departments of Religion, Judaism, Near Eastern Studies, Christian Origins, Hebrew Bible, etc. “The Historical-Critical Method” is what defines these programs." Peter Enns, [6].

"But, since most of Ehrman’s textual arguments are essentially the well-established and long-accepted consensus views of just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title (Ehrman admits as much beginning at the 7:50 mark in the video here), the site is essentially little more than an online video version of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, where conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools." Robert Cargill, [7].

I would support the text "Most mainstream (critical) scholars see the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different, even incompatible ways,(references here) giving separate and probably unhistorical genealogies of Jesus. (different references)" Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, but we still need a reference for the "Most mainstream (critical) scholars" bit. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95: You asked whether I accept StAnselm's wording for the sentence under dispute, but he himself said he disagreed with using the word "scholars" because it implies that all scholars agree. I don't think he was proposing his own suggested wording for the sentence, but rather he was guessing what the original wording was intended to say. Is that correct, StAnselm? In any event, any revised wording would have to avoid stating that all scholars believe the same thing, because they clearly don't.

On the issue of college classes: I think you misunderstood my point about that. I was responding to Tgeorgescu's claim that "all universities" teach his version of the Nativity, so I pointed out that: 1) I doubt very many secular courses even mention the Nativity, so how can he claim they all teach a particular viewpoint about it? 2) General secular courses on ancient Middle-Eastern history tend to view the Bible as a version of events from the point of view of the Hebrews - not infallible but not fictional either - because most of the battles and sieges etc mentioned in the Bible are confirmed by other sources. E.g, the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib is also mentioned by Assyrian government records and at least one Greek source. Any religious or supernatural events in the Bible are no different than countless other ancient accounts which also make copious mention of supernatural events which they attribute to their own gods and goddesses. E.g. the Greek chronicler Herodotus constantly talks about the predictions made by the Delphic Oracle and apparitions of deities or other spirits, such as the "phantom woman" which he says was seen at the battle of Salamis between the Greeks and Persians. Most of the surviving Egyptian records are part of religious monuments erected to their gods; Assyrian government records constantly attribute their victories to their chief god, Ashur, and so on for other ancient sources. But Tgeorgescu's authors view these pagan records as trustworthy while claiming the Bible isn't trustworthy because it also deals with religious themes. This is flagrantly inconsistent. Worse in some ways, they claim the various documents which were compiled into the Bible are fictional simply because there are differences between different authors such as Matthew and Luke, but they don't dismiss other accounts that similarly differ from each other, as almost all sets of historical accounts do (take a look at eyewitness accounts of battles to see some really sharp differences between eyewitnesses). Some of these authors seem to treat the Bible as a single account which would be expected to contain no differences, but in fact the various sections of the Bible are called "books" instead of "chapters" because they began as separate books by different authors and were later compiled into a single volume, and in fact we have early versions of most of these books when they were still individual documents. My point is that these authors are using arguments that no historian could accept without rejecting virtually all historical accounts, which indicates a huge problem with these authors' arguments. So why are they the foremost experts?

Tgeorgescu's reply today completely sidestepped these issues (again), by just repeating his previous claim and then also repeating his statements about the use of "historical-critical methods" despite the patent fact that these authors are NOT using methods that historians would accept, as I explained above. Nor does it make any sense to contrast these authors against what he calls "evangelical" authors because at no point during this debate have I ever argued for what he calls an "evangelical" approach of just blindly accepting the literal meaning of every Biblical passage, nor are these two sets of authors the only two groups out there. There is also a third view which is based on analyzing the Bible the way most historians would ACTUALLY analyze any other historical source: i.e., you don't just dismiss something as fiction because there are minor differences between different accounts; instead, you try to reconcile differences if possible, which is actually far easier for most of these Biblical passages than it is for many combat accounts; and you don't dismiss every religious-themed account as fiction because most historical accounts do have religious overtones and a significant number of them mention supernatural (or apparently supernatural) events.

On a final note, I would ask that you please tell PiCo to stop adding huge amounts of extra stuff - without discussion - to this article while we're still trying to resolve the current dispute. He recently added over 31,000 (!) characters of new material. GBRV (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Section break

First 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'm having trouble following things, too. What are Tgeorgescu's three sources? Ehrman, Enns, and Cargill? Because none of those those are really about the nativity. In any case, there are lots of objectionable statements in the article, which has become a mishmash of claims about what "scholars" say:

1. Many scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual.
2. Many view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines.
3. As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information.
4. Some scholars maintain the traditional view that the two accounts are historically accurate and do not contradict each other...
5. Many modern scholars consider the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two different accounts...
6. Scholars see the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus, and probably not historical.
7. According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts...
8. Most scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC.
9. Most critical scholars believe that Luke was simply mistaken in this matter...
10. Mainstream scholars interpret Matthew's nativity as depicting Jesus as a new Moses with a genealogy going back to Abraham...

Now, with number 5, for example, I do not have access to the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, but I was able to look up Brown. Brown does not say anything about what "most scholars" think, only what he thinks, and it's not quite what is said here: he says it is "unlikely that either account is completely historical". So I think that the article is full of claims about some/many/most mainstream/modern/critical scholars, without really being able to back it up. The wording in the lead, "modern scholars such as X, Y, and Z" might be a better way of describing it. StAnselm (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Being a sensitive topic, we should adhere to verifiablity. We should use "most/mainstream/some/modern scholars" if and only if multiple reliable sources directly backup those claims. It should be either a significant majority view point or a significant minority viewpoint. The significance can be evaluated by the number of sources. And for the mere fact that a statement is verifiable, does not guarantee its inclusion. When sources are non-consistent, the claims must be attributed to who said that (like X and Y said this). Of course we cannot mention all view points, view points of notable people (having an article in Wikipedia) can be mentioned. Lets not interpret sources. We'll mention what it is, as it is. Any questions or clarifications or refutations? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Edited --11:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(Not a party to this dispute so I'll address this remark to the moderator: I don't think finding 3 RS is Wiki-policy, one is enough. If he's reliable, he's reliable. If another RS is found that explicitly contradicts the first, then of course we must reconsider. I have no further comment. PiCo (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)).

@PiCo: I've appended my comment appropriately.. Thanks and regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[8] (already removed from the article, but was cited before), says what critical scholars have known for a long time about the nativity stories. So it is a WP:RS/AC claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, that's one source. Any other? If not, this can be attributed to the author and not as a fact. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you ask me, it should be attributed to "critical scholars". That's what WP:RS/AC is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, but wouldn't that be a POV, and the point everyone would disagree on? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Stating the mainstream view as the mainstream view or the view of critical scholars as the view of critical scholars is no violation of WP:NPOV. Otherwise WP:RS/AC would be rendered meaningless. We have a policy, we have to apply it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu You have 'only one' source which states that, and it is insufficient. If we mention this as a fact, we are not maintaining NPOV. Any varying views StAnselm and GBRV? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly accept JAaron95's suggestion of either using the word "some" or listing individual authors, and I agree with his points on Tgeorgescu's citation which (again) just quotes an author claiming overwhelming consensus in favor of a view that he himself happens to take, which is another example of a partisan author claiming that everyone agrees with him. I don't see how that would prove a consensus.

StAnselm made good points about the essential problem with this article, and many other articles on similar topics: sweeping statements about "modern scholarly consensus" are routinely made in order to bludgeon the reader into thinking that there is no credible opposing view, despite the numerous valid opposing views. That needs to stop. GBRV (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you see the diff being disputed, there are at least three sources making some sort of WP:RS/AC claim. We cannot simply ignore the policy, especially there is no evidence that mainline/critical scholars think otherwise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Content must be verifiable and reliably sourced (multiple reliable sources in this case). As such, who holds a particular view, should also be reliably sourced (multiple non-biased sources of course). When such claims can't be verified, those should be attributed to their authors. Hope this solves the issue. Anymore questions or problems? If issues are unheard of in a time frame of 24 hours, this case will be closed as successful. There seems to be some issues. (pinging all three involved parties to make them aware of this message. @Tgeorgescu, GBRV, and StAnselm:) Thanks for trying to peacefully solve this issue and for your civility and patience. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Edited --15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Edited again --18:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:, I already asked you, that's one source. Any other?. You can still give me the other two sources that explicitly accept this claim. And only one reliable source mentioning something, cannot be taken for a fact, but can be attributed to that reliable source i.e., author. Multiple reliable sources are needed. By the way GBRV, do you have sources which claims vice versa? If not, the three sources (if it is provided) will be considered sufficient to back the particular claim. Thanks and regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I though that it was obvious that we discuss the sources (removed or retained) at [9]. To be sure, they do not make the same consensus claim, but they make similar consensus claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Another consensus claim is:

"Contrary to what Luke indicates, historians have long known from several ancient inscriptions, the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., fully ten years after Herod the Great died. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Quirinius was not the Syrian governor."

—Bart Ehrman, The New Testament - A Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford, 1997, Box 8.2, p. 102.

"Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977. A massive and exhaustive discussion of the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, suitable for those who want to know simply everything about every detail."

—Bart Ehrman, op. cit., p. 114.

The last quote is about Brown's reliability as a source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

D. In addition, certain aspects of these accounts strike historians as completely implausible. Consider just Luke’s account.

1. We have relatively good documentation for the reign of Caesar Augustus, but no mention in any source of a worldwide census. 2. Moreover, how could such a census be taken, in which everyone registered at the homes of their distant ancestors? How would they know where to go? Imagine the mass migrations. How is it that no source from the time even bothered to mention it? 3. Finally, we know from other sources—the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, and some inscriptions—that despite Luke’s account, Quirinius was not governor of Syria during the reign of King Herod in Palestine but ten years later.

—Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus, Part I, The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 13.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

5. As a result, most critical historians consider the tradition of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem to be highly problematic. — Ibidem, p. 35.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 23 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)

JAaron95: Tgeorgescu has mentioned that he has three sources; but at least two of those are just authors who claim their own personal view is dominant, and I think the other one also takes that form. These aren't neutral third-party sources from uninvolved people. You can always find authors who claim most people support their view, which doesn't prove anything.

He also mentioned quotes from Bart Ehrman implying that historians allegedly unanimously agree on several of Ehrman's views, which isn't true, as has already been discussed elsewhere. To give a brief summary (with citations of authors who disagree with Ehrman): the idea that Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until after Herod the Great's death is in fact disputed by many historians who have pointed out that there is good evidence that Quirinius served two separate tenures as governor, including one during the reign of Herod the Great (according to archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson and others; e.g., see Wilson's book: "Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability" p. 116). The Biblical passage in question can also be translated as "BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria".

Ehrman's claim that there is no evidence (outside the Bible, he means) of a census around the birth of Jesus has also been rejected by scholars such as Dr. John Elder, who points out that there are Roman documents indicating there was a census conducted around the year that Jesus is estimated to have been born (see Elder's book, "Prophets, Idols, and Diggers" pp. 159-60).

Ehrman's claim that the Bible says people were required to return to the place of their distant ancestors, rather than their own home town, has also been disputed because the Bible says Bethlehem was Joseph's "own town" (perhaps implying he was only temporarily in Nazareth), and then mentions that he was of the "house and lineage of David". Ehrman is conflating these two statements. A decree by a Roman governor, G. Vibius Maximus, says that people were required to return to their home town for censuses, which is remarkably similar to what the Bible says (see books such as C.M. Cobern's "The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament" p. 47; and M.F, Unger's "Archaeology and the New Testament" p. 64).

But rather than arguing further and exchanging lists of authors who support each viewpoint, it would be better just to adopt your earlier suggestion to use the common WP practice of saying either "many" people support a particular view or citing individual authors who support that view. Or a variation of StAnselm's suggestion might also work. Either of these would be far better than the process of proving a consensus, which would be a hopeless task because thousands of authors have written on these subjects, and many of them claim that everyone else supports their own personal viewpoint. GBRV (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"...according to archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson and others; e.g., see Wilson's book: Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability...";"Dr. Clifford A. Wilson (1923-2012) was an Australian young-earth creationist archaeologist...". Reliability is crucial, for sure :) PiCo (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say, the accounts are highly contradicting. Going by the above sources, there's not really a good conclusion of the what the scholars believe. If it is indeed true that scholars have different views, we'll mention something like, Scholars have contradicting views on the historicity of Jesus. Some scholars believe so and so, while some scholars believe so and so. Does anyone have any opposing views on what I have proposed?

I can also see that there is a scarcity of sources. To solve this, I have collected some sources from my access to JSTOR (there are more; you can ask me if you want something specific). And they are as follows;

• Jackson Case, Shirley (January 1911). "The Historicity of Jesus an Estimate of the Negative Argument". The American Journal of Theology. 15 (1): 20–42. JSTOR 3155273.
• "The Virgin-Birth: Its Expectation and Publication". The Old and New Testament Student. 14 (3): 188–189. March 1892. JSTOR 3157348.
• Anderson, K.C. (October 1914). "THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HISTORICITY PROBLEM". The Monist. 24 (4): 634–636. JSTOR 27900512.
• Carus, Paul (October 1910). "THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. IN COMMENT UPON THE THEORY OF PROF. WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH". The Monist. 20 (4): 633–638. JSTOR 27900288.
• Hopkins Miller, Lucius (November 1913). "The Source of Our Information regarding the Life of Jesus". The Biblical World. 42 (5): 290–303. JSTOR 3142134.

Please go through the sources, you might find something useful. If there are contradictions in the above sources too, we'll go for the above compromise. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are all very old sources; I can't imagine there is much there that would be able to be put in the article. StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I'm not suggesting to use it, rather I want to know the views of multiple authors. Aren't the authors and their views notable? Does the age of a source count in this context? If yes, how? Thanks and regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If I can interpose, yes, age does count, it counts a lot. Biblical studies is an academic field that changes quite rapidly - until the 1970s, for example, it was almost a total consensus that the first five books of the Bible were produced by editors combining a set of four source documents. That was it, it was orthodoxy. Nowadays that hypothesis is almost totally gone. In this are, always go for (the most recent studies available; (b) by scholars with a proven track record, respected by their peers; (c) published, if at all possible, in prestigious volumes like, for example, the Oxford Bible Commentary or similar (the last is to avoid monographs in which scholars are pushing personal views - quite legitimate in scholarly terms, but not what we're after). StAnselm, by the way, is a professional bible scholar himself, and personally I'd take on trust anything he told me, even though I think overall we're probably not in agreement at all. PiCo (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved from the section below. It is for discussing the proposal below. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Upon the historicity of Jesus the overwhelming consensus is that he did exist, to the extent that the claim he did not exist is a fringe view (see e.g. Christ myth theory and Historicity of Jesus). One cannot claim that Bible scholars are reliable for the existence of Jesus and unreliable for the nativity stories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So, the consensus is that he was born, though there are problems with accepting the nativity stories as historically accurate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The practice when editing such articles is decide whether a view is consensus, majority view, minority view or fringe among Bible scholars. Of course, editors don't decide than based upon original research, they judge that according to reliable sources. E.g. we have a reliable source (Ehrman) claiming that historians cannot establish miracles for historical facts (they can neither prove nor disprove miracles), so this is a guideline for rejecting certain views as pseudohistory. But we never reject a whole field or some reputable scholars because they do not play the harmonizing game. Those who play the harmonizing game are fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Now, I don't say that they are wrong by default, since that would be my own original research. Instead, as stated before, the judgment whether they are in minority (upon a specific subject) should be sourced to the works of reputable scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved from the section. It is for discussing the proposal below. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: We are not discussing about a particular miracle, are we? And we are not accepting nativity as historically accurate. As I said, there are varied views among the scholars itself. To give equal importance to all major views, I proposed a compromise. There is no consensus among the scholars is what I can see, that's what should be mentioned in the article. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Historians cannot prove or disprove miracles (in general, as a category, e.g. there can be no proof that Jesus is or isn't God or that he did or not change water into wine), but in certain cases they may have reason to consider some miracle stories (e.g. virgin birth) as unhistorical (see e.g. Criterion of dissimilarity). In other cases, historians accept the stories about Jesus as a faith healer as accurate, without claiming that he actually healed people through magic. The gist are: claims of miracles are unfalsifiable, but claims of having visions or people believing that they were healed aren't. I would accept stating something like "Küng stated that most Catholic scholars don't accept nativity stories as historically accurate", as long as it is clear that Küng stated it, but he is not the only one having such view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not only historians, but also the scientific community cannot prove or disprove miracles. That is one significant view with scientific consensus. But this is different. Nativity stories are not equal to miracles. But something is clear for me. Denying the nativity stories as a whole is only one significant view and it should be mentioned in the article. While Kung stated his view, I don't see where multiple Catholic scholars accepted this fact. But it shouldn't be a problem when Kung is attributed to his opinion. All the participants accept attributing the author to his opinion. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95: Regarding PiCo's snide comment about Dr. Clifford Wilson: he was an archaeologist with a Ph.D. who was writing about a historical subject within his area of expertise, which would normally be viewed as a measure of credibility regardless of whether PiCo personally likes Wilson's views.

Regarding Tgeorgescu's claim that people who try to harmonize these accounts are only "fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals" : the standard practice among secular historians - at least whenever they don't have an axe to grind - is to try to harmonize as many of the surviving accounts as possible, in fact that's the most basic thing that historians do. Historical research is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle from different pieces which often don't seem to fit at first, but with enough effort there's usually a way to fit them together. Take a look at collections of combat accounts to see just how different they often are, but even those can usually be harmonized. This is basic practice, and it isn't just done by "fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals".

He also mentioned Ehrman's views on judging miracles. Yes, historians don't deal in the judgement of miracles or supernatural events, but if they just dismissed all accounts which mention such things then they'd have to dismiss the accounts of the battle of Gettysburg (which mention a seemingly supernatural figure which many of the soldiers said appeared at two crucial points) or countless other accounts. In formal scholarly writing, historians usually take an agnostic position by just passing over these things without comment, but they don't dismiss the accounts themselves. What Ehrman is doing is quite a bit different: he won't accept even mundane things like the census or its requirements, even though (as I pointed out yesterday) there are Roman documents which would appear to confirm both the timing and the regulations described in the Bible. There is nothing "supernatural" about census regulations - that's as mundane as it possibly gets - so how do Tgeorgescu's comments on the supernatural fit into this discussion? GBRV (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

FinalThird round

•  Volunteer note: Since we are not moving anywhere with this, and given the sources are highly contradicting. There's not really a good conclusion of what the scholars believe. And I propose the following as a possible remedy. If there are multiple reliable sources for a particular wording, such as most scholars, some scholars, critical scholars etc.., that should without any doubts be mentioned in the article. If there are contradicting views among different communities (scholars, catholic scholars, academics), all significant view points (assess the no. of reliable sources for each view) must be mentioned. If a particular view point is not significant, it simply doesn't have to be in the article. But if the viewpoint of an author(s) itself is(are) notable, and it does not have a consensus, it should be attributed to the author. If you oppose, please include a sentence or two on why you do so. If there's only one editor opposing this proposal, I'll fail this case with my proposal as a possible remedy. If there are more than one opposing this proposal, this case will be escalated to the mediation committee. If there's a consensus for different wording of the proposal, I'll change the wording as such. Please question me for further clarifications. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Edited --04:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95: I would certainly accept your proposed wording (with the minor quibble that, as Tgeorgescu seems to have already pointed out, the debate isn't over the historicity of Jesus but rather the nativity accounts. Pagan Roman sources also mention Jesus' life and crucifixion by Pontius Pilatus, but they don't include details about the nativity. Some people accept the pagan sources but not the accounts that were incorporated into the Bible, and that's what the debate is about).

"But I don't accept the version that Tgeorgescu took the liberty to add on his own to the article tonight, since that's not what I had agreed to (as he claimed in his edit comment), and it's overly partisan: it's a long set of quotes from only one side, claiming that everyone supports that side. I had objected to this repeatedly rather than agreeing to it. What I DID agree to was your suggestion to just summarize things briefly by saying that "some scholars believe X and some scholars believe Y". The people Tgeorgescu wants to cite can be cited in the refs, not quoted extensively in the body text with misleading statements. GBRV (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't agree with Tgeorgescu's edit, either; it's certainly not what we agreed on here. I had actually though we'd reached agreement on that sentence in the lead, and had moved on to other sentences in the article, which had vaguer claims of "most scholars". StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll register weak support for the proposed wording. It doesn't address what to say throughout the article, where there is constant reference to what scholars believe; will we have this sort of sentence at every point? StAnselm (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@StAnselm: How about directly attributing it to the author if his/her view is not a significant viewpoint? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would support the proposal if all the examples on my list should be attributed to a single (or limited number) of authors. StAnselm (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@StAnselm: The new proposal wording matches with what you meant? —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've also appended the wording of the proposal. Please post your opinions once again @GBRV:. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought that we had an agreement to state the views of those scholars with attribution, which I did at [10]. The very point of WP:RS/AC is that one scholar may speak for many scholars and express judgements like "this is consensus view" or "this is majority view". To state that a scholar only speaks for himself when he patently does not is to violate policy. That's the old "that's just your own view" debating trick. As User:PiCo stated either a scholar is reliable or he isn't reliable. If he is reliable, he is entitled to support verifiable WP:RS/AC judgements. If he is not reliable we should not quote him. But one cannot eat his cake and have it too. Consensus or majority claims should be verifiable, not based upon original research. Till now, no sources about dissenting views among critical or mainline scholars have been presented, just WP:OR claims of what Bible scholars should do for a living. There is broad agreement among critical scholars that the NT gospels aren't eyewitness testimonies, so that's why they don't do harmonizing. To be sure, critical scholars use synopsis, but they use it in order to stress the theological differences among Bible authors. I don't oppose consensus claims like "conservative scholars consider nativity stories as having historicity". All I ask is that critical scholars get the respect they deserve, and if Evangelical sources are produced I promise to respect their own consensus claims (i.e. of consensus among Evangelicals or conservative scholars). I agree with the proposed remedy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it is too late for it, but I have this source: Ehrman, Bart D. (26 July 1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-19-983943-8. But for now it may be more important to provide another illustration of the problem to show how the Gospels sometimes provide entire narratives that, despite their religious or theological value, are not seen to be historically accurate by critical scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And the slam dunk mentioned by User:StAnselm: Steven B. Cowan; Terry L. Wilder (2013). In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture. B&H Publishing Group. p. 445. ISBN 978-1-4336-7678-9. Though greatly disparaged by critical scholars, Jesus' virgin birth in Bethlehem is multiply attested in narratives that present his coming as the culmination of Israel's Messianic expectations (Matt 1:18-2:23; Luke 1:5-2:20). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Except that I'm not sure how useful/valuable/necessary it is to talk about "critical scholars". "Majority of scholars", certainly. But the word "critical scholars" is used in a number of different ways. All scholars, even evangelical ones, practice one or more forms of biblical criticism. (By the way, there is a very bad WP:EGGish link in the article - "modern scholars" is wikilinked to Higher Criticism, which redirects to Historical criticism; if anything, the link should be to Biblical criticism.) I fear that Ehrman means "non-evangelical", but why we should we exclude them? A consensus among "critical scholars" according to Ehrman's definition is probably no more important than a consensus among evangelical scholars. StAnselm (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@StAnselm: But using critical scholars think so and so (without attribution), per the sources above above shouldn't be a problem, right?—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying I would avoid it. If it's talking about a subset of "biblical scholars" (e.g. biblical scholars who have no faith commitments - there was a major debate about this a few years ago in the Society of Biblical Literature), then it's not important for our purposes - we only need to make statements about what scholars-in-general think. It may be used as synonymous with "biblical scholars", but I think it's too hard to tell from one source to another how people define the term. So, yes - the statement in any case will need to be attributed. StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Do we need to sort out the individual (10 as StAnselm said) sentences here too? If yes, we can. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95 : I think your earlier proposal was the best option. One problem with the revised proposal is that it sends us right back to the original headache of bickering over what the "majority" is or whether there's even a meaningful way to define it in this case. It's better just to state the various viewpoints, with either the word "many" or specific authors cited as examples.

Tgeorgescu keeps repeating his assertion that an author's claim about the acceptance of the author's own viewpoint is sufficient to establish what the consensus is. I don't see how that makes any sense. An RS can be used to establish certain things that are within the author's area of expertise but not used as the infallible truth on every point. GBRV (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If GBRV is saying that this is not a content dispute but a dispute over policy (due weight), then it needs to be taken to a different forum.PiCo (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I want some questions to be answered, mainly because I have a feeling we are failing NPOV. Tgeorgescu has provided some sources to what critical scholars think. GBRV says that those are opinions. If so, what is the difference between a reliable source and a view point? Here at least two authors have mentioned what's the consensus among critical scholars and I take it as reliable sources. To StAnselm, mentioning what critical scholars think as a view instead of attributing it to individual authors is of no problem here. We'll be explicitly using the word critical and not biblical scholars as a whole. we only need to make statements about what scholars-in-general think— I'm not at all aligned with this statement. All significant viewpoints must be given their due weight and be mentioned in the article. I'm not convinced with both of your last statements, sorry. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To be sure "critical scholars" could mean several things: all scholars working within biblical criticism or just a subset who maintain that reason trumps fideism (they are not necessarily radical, agnostic or atheist, but they think that evidence may trump religiously orthodox views). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95 : My point was that you would normally want an objective third-party source to give an estimate of which side's viewpoint is more widely accepted, rather than an author claiming that most people agree with himself. If I found people on the opposite side claiming that most people agree with their side, would that prove the matter? Probably not, right? An RS is supposed to be used for information that derives from the author's area of expertise - in this case, the evidence they present from historical or archaeological information - not comments they make about themselves. Why can't we just go with your earlier suggestion, which avoids the sticky and divisive issue of deciding which view is the "overwhelming majority"? GBRV (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Note for the record: "critical" means the historical-critical method. Opposed to it is the grammatical-historical method - the link points to an article describing and distinguishing between the two. The historical-critical method dominates biblical studies today, and the grammatical-critical method has some rather questionable assumptions, its adherents being committed to the truth and uniqueness of the Bible. Sorry for intervening, but I was getting tired of waiting for someone else to do it PiCo (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So, would you say a scholar who adopts a "canonical approach" is not a "critical scholar". Or would you say "not necessarily", that fields like canonical criticism cut through the critical/non-critical divide? StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Canonical criticism" is a term that's not used much these days so far as I know, but it's true that the basic concept is identical with the grammatical-historical approach. My point was simply to clarify what Ehrman (was it Ehrman?) meant by "critical scholarship". PiCo (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Looks like we have a consensus for attributing statements to their author(s). Any opposing view points here? Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 13:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree with that. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be tedious to ascribe each statement in the article to a named author ("According to Smith, the Earth is round") - that's what the source-templates are for. It can also be misleading ("According to Jones, English is a Germanic language" - it's according to everyone, not just Jones). It should be done when there are competing viewpoints and the balance of scholarly opinion is either split or unclear ("According to Black the documentary hypothesis has fallen into disuse, but according to White it's still followed by a large number of scholars"). In other words, statements should be ascribed to named authors if circumstances warrant. PiCo (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95 : I agree, so long as the matter is just stated neutrally as "X argues A, Y argues B" etc. GBRV (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@PiCo: When a particular view is the 'single' view i.e., there are no contradicting sources, of a community and is a significant viewpoint, attribution is not required. But if there are contradicting views among the community itself, attribution is warranted. And something like A thinks so and so, while B thinks so and so, can be used. Hope that fixes the issue. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 08:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And when our source (Ehrman) says: "[the] Gospels sometimes provide entire narratives that, despite their religious or theological value, are not seen to be historically accurate by critical scholars"? Can that stand without in-line attribution?PiCo (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@PiCo: Ehrman is not claiming the historicity inaccuracy as his view, rather he makes a claim of what critical scholars (others) think. If it has to be without attribution, critical scholars themselves have to say that. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 09:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman is himself a critical scholar and speaks in the name of most critical scholars. Attributing this view to Ehrman only is denial of WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Any other issues? This case will be closed as successful in 24 hours, if no further issues are brought up. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk(pka, JAaron95) 11:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If Ehrman himself is a critical scholar (I verified this in his article), the statement by him can be mentioned as a view/consensus by critical scholars, given that he explicitly mentions what critical scholars think. Unless his fellow critical scholars have stated other wise, his statement can be mentioned as an academic consensus and requires no attribution. This is indeed aligned with WP:RS/AC. P.S. Here, explicit mention is the key word. Any opposing views here? Please make them here in less than 48 hours. Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think StAnselm already explained why he objects to that, and I think it's not much different than the original wording which we both objected to. I guess it depends how it's worded. GBRV (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@GBRV: Views among critical scholars aren't significant views? Be it minority or majority. Wordings would be something like this—According to critical scholars, ...... . Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 09:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reference in the Bart D. Ehrman article to him being a "critical scholar"; I'm not sure how you verified it. Once again the reasons why I thin his statement should be attributed, is that (a) it depends on his definition of "critical scholar", and (b) he's not an impartial observer - he's clearly making a claim that backs up his position. Finally, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Darrell L. Bock have critiqued Ehrman on this very issue here: "It is only be defining scholarship on his own terms and by excluding scholars who disagree with him that Ehrman is able to imply that he is supported by all other scholarship." StAnselm (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Kostenberger "is Senior Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina." Andreas Kostenberger is about as fundamental as a fundamentalist can be without breaking a sweat. I'll stick with Ehrman :) PiCo (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just resist the temptation to stick the boot into poor Kostenberger. Here he is on the proper roles of husbands and wives, as revealed to us by Genesis 2: Men are called by God to be leaders of women and children ... their headship images the very authority of God. And he continues: "Women are called to find joy in the role of helper to their husband ... [t]heir submission images the very obedience to God the gospel produces." Not the most progressive of voices. PiCo (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Whereas I read those quotes and don't think that they say anything about his scholarship. StAnselm (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Per this source from the article,

“

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)

(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)

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)

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)

@GBRV: 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.

“

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

”

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)

•  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)

•  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)

•  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)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Southern strategy#Oct 2015 edits to lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Springee (talk · contribs)
• Scoobydunk (talk · contribs)

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]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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 Scoobydunk

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 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the article talk page. However, this dispute is also pending at the original research noticeboard. That discussion is getting nowhere. Since this noticeboard does not discuss issues that are also under discussion in another forum, it might be reasonable to archive or withdraw the NORN thread in order to request moderated discussion here. I am neither opening nor declining this case, which should not be opened while the NORN thread is still pending. Also, the filing party has not notified the other editor of this thread on their talk page. (Notice on the article talk page is not sufficient.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I will place notice on Scoobydunk's talk page. I would ask that he close the NORN discussion. It is not moving towards a resolution. Thanks Springee (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have placed the notice and requested the NORN discussion be closed. I will hold off on replying to this discussion pending the closure of the NORN discussion. Springee (talk) 01:37, 3 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• [%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2] 

Users involved

• Garos777 (talk · contribs)
• Esetok (talk · contribs)

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 Esetok

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 discussion

• Volunteer note - This appears to be a content dispute about the Russian Wikipedia. This noticeboard is for the resolution of content disputes about the English Wikipedia. Neither of the editors has been engaged in any recent content dispute in the English Wikipedia. The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing, but this noticeboard wouldn't be able to address this dispute anyway. The filing editor is advised to read the policies and guidelines of the Russian Wikipedia as to how content dispute resolution is done there. I can't give any advice because I don't read Russian. I will be closing this case shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer question - Is there any Russian-literate volunteer at this noticeboard who can advise these editors as to how to resolve a content dispute in the Russian Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 10 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BalCoder (talk · contribs)
• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs)

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 BEd

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:

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Block Vote
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

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)

Talk:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd discussion

• Volunteer note - The filing party has not notified the other party of the re-opening of this case. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify other editors of a case, including a refiling of a case. Also, the filing party is reminded that this noticeboard is for discussion of content issues only, not complaints about conduct. In order for this case to be re-opened, the filing party must notify the other editor again, and I recommend that both parties agree, as conditions to moderated discussion, to participate in a timely manner and to refrain from comments on conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I did inform the other party, here, but not on their user page. I have now inserted the drn-notice template on the user page. --BalCoder (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd note -

•  Volunteer note: Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm UY Scuti and I'm taking this case case for moderation and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. Although only two participants are listed here, other editors who don't have their names in the list, may chime in at any given time if they are interested. Before going into our discussions, let me point out some basic rules to make this discussion as friction-less as possible. 1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. (failing to do so, may get this case closed as stale) 2)Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the disputed area of the article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issue here, so that we'll have better chances of solving this dispute 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. P.S. Participation on this discussion is entirely voluntary. Good luck and Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd Issue 1 -

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)

Hello User talk:Robert McClenon,

A) MMP is a "Mixed system" (occasionally called a hybrid system or a two-tier system)

B) I move that the lead "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", be changed to "Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, and FPTP as its plurality component is considered a mixed electoral system, which is a middle ground between PR voting systems and Plurality voting systems".

C) The sources do not support the former statement; in fact, they support the latter. The Mtholyoke source states that MMP is a mixed electoral system, which is a compromise between the two rival systems (Plurality and Proportional representation). "In part this growing attention is a result of MMP’s unique claim to be a "compromise" between the two main rival systems." ^[1]. "The Case Against Voting Reform: Why the AV System Would Damage Britain" by James Forder you have referenced also does not state the MMP is fully proportional. In this book, Forder argues in favour of FPTP and against PR and mixed systems. He argues against coalition governments and against any situation where an elected official is appointed by party leadership instead of directly by voters. Forder specifically groups AV and MMP as mixed electoral systems, and argues that they are not fully proportional. ^: 22 [2] Additionally, several other sources consistently group MMP as a mixed electoral system, which has the potential of yield proportional results (only in New Zealand), but usually results in semi-proportional representation (as is the case in all other countries currently using MMP: Bolivia, Germany, Hungary, Lesotho, Romania, and Russia). ^{[3][4][5][6]: 22 [2][7][8][9][10]}

D) Academic scholars who write about electoral systems consistently group them into these three groups: proportional representation system, mixed member system, and plurality/majority system. For instance, Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Claudio Martinelli, groups electoral systems into majoritarian (also called plurality), proportional, and mixed. "There are many ingredients and they are so varied and different by nature, and their implications are even many more, to understand them we must use discipline and good care in making a classification according to some usual categories, starting from those dividing majoritarian systems from proportional and from mixed." ^[11]Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 05:19, 9 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)

Hello User talk:Robert McClenon,

The Electoral Reform Society does NOT group MMP into proportional representation systems. It specifically groups MMP into "Mixed Systems". "AMS (the UK term for MMP) is a hybrid voting system. It combines elements of First Past the Post where voters mark an X next to the candidate they want to represent them in their constituency, and proportional representation."^[12] The Electoral Reform Society even provides a table illustrating this fact.

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Preferential block voting
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

^[13]

The Mtholyoke source states that MMP is a mixed electoral system, which is a compromise between the two rival systems (Plurality and Proportional representation). "In part this growing attention is a result of MMP’s unique claim to be a "compromise" between the two main rival systems." ^[1].

James Forder, author of "The Case Against Voting Reform: Why the AV System Would Damage Britain" argues that AMS (the British term for MMP) is "not a system of PR at all" ^: 22 [2]

Many other sources, such as DPR voting, list MMP as semi-proportional. "In AMS the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." ^[14].

For the above reasons, it is more accurate to change the lead to: "Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, and FPTP as its plurality component is considered a mixed electoral system, which is a middle ground between PR voting systems and Plurality voting systems.[6][7][8][9]:22[10][11][12][13][14] MMP has the potential to be proportional, however the results of MMP are almost always semi-proportional. This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification. [11] [12][13]"Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd Issue 2 -

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]

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd Issue 3 -

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)

• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd Issue 4 -

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)

• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd Issue 5 -

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)

• Volunteer note - I am not the moderator, but I will say that above post is too long, didn't read. The moderator did clearly say to be civil and concise. The request to be civil and concise is civil and concise. The reply is not concise. If the moderator fails this discussion, the next step will be a Request for Comments, and do you really expect the community to read something that long? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@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)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Please try to listen and follow. Your editing of the above reply is not helping. —UY Scuti ^Talk 06:10, 9 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Domestic violence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Charlotte135 (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs)
• Fyddlestix (talk · contribs)

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.

@Robert McClenonI wish to retract my request for dispute resolution here as I posted it to the wrong forum of dispute resolution. If possible, please close this post. Thanks and apologies for any inconvenience to other editors here.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Specifically it is this last section of the Talk:Domestic violence page that I have brought to dispute resolution.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Charlotte135

We 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)

Gee thanks Fyddlestix as you are aware lots of objective, neutral, good faith editors have tried to add to that article over the years it seems and been met with strong opposition and intimation from gatekeepers. Most editors like Guy Macon and Minor4th make made extremely clear, cohesive, rational, objective arguments for inclusion, only to be shot down in flames. Most of which got drawn into long debates it looks like as I read through the archives on these old talk pages. So, that's why I have tried to seek neutral dispute resolution here as advised, before any edit warring. I realise that if I tried to add those strong reliable sources to the article now, they would be deleted before you could say Jack Rabbit! So, yes, I posted here before any possible chance of edit warring were to occur as I was told to do on my talk page.

I added this section in an as neutral, objective way as I possibly could on the talk page recently. Flyer22 and Gandydancer ignoring this reasonable approach is not because of my lack of understanding or neutrality. It was I think because I'm sticking to the reliable sources and posting on the talk page before daring to make any edits to the article. Until I do attempt to make an edit I am being intimidated, attacked and belittled called a troll and now ignored, as you say Fiddlestix. Similar pattern with other editors over the years. Unlike other editors I'm taking the dispute resolution approach early, rather than even get close to edit warring.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Reborn

Summary of dispute by Gandydancer

Summary of dispute by Fyddlestix

Please 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 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their talk pages of this thread. I am neither accepting nor declining this thread at this time, but am waiting for the filing party to notify the other editors and for their responses. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Apology. Will do so right now.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Waiting for comments by the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Comment in your own section. Do not engage in threaded discussion before the case is opened. I have moved a comment into its editor's own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 12 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.