Thank you for posting this. It nicely addresses the
case of references
being
used which when you check them out, turn out to not actually support the
information which they supposedly support. The advancement of references to
support information implies that when the supposed reference is consulted
you will find (and not by exhaustive search) information which backs up the
information inserted in Wikipedia; not a confused and ambiguous situation.
Hold on there, I don't think it shows anything of the kind. He hasn't seen
the source itself, he merely claims to have written Bard, and not received a
response that was to his liking. That's quite a different thing.
As we offer no alternatives to you other than giving up
or breaking
Wikipedia rules yourself, the problem must be solved using our dispute
resolution procudure. Your request for comment is a good start, as is
continued discussion with Jayjg. If those actions do not result in
agreement, you may try mediation. If mediation fails after a good faith
effort (or if it is refused or not engaged in with good faith) you can then
request arbitration (hopefully the mediation committee itself will do that
in such cases).
I that an even better start would be for Bjorn to actually post some of the
information he has on the Talk: page, rather than simply reverting the
article and bringing his evidence (such as it is) here instead.
Jayjg has been the "victor" in a recent
arbitration since the other party
aggressively broke most Wikipedia policies.
I didn't feel victorious; the whole experience (and that with Alberuni) made
me seriously consider leaving Wikipedia. Other editors did leave.
However it has long been
observed that there are problems with bias in the articles which concern
the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will not support anti-Semitism masquerading
as "balance" but I will welcome responsible insistance on our Neutral Point
of View policy. Hopefully the rest of the Arbitration Committee is of the
same mind.
Well, I'm certainly of the same mind.
Jay.