Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

Case Opened on 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties
vs.
 * et al.
 * SimonP (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])

SimonP has been informed
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The issue has been discussed-
 * On article talk pages:
 * Matthew 1: -Ril- & Carnildo vs. SimonP
 * Matthew 1: Ed2gs vs. SimonP
 * Matthew 1: Robert A West vs. SimonP
 * A well advertised survey
 * 65-70% to remove the text
 * Centralised discussion:
 * Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text - Consensus was to remove the text from the articles specified below, since it is already at wikisource

Despite this, Simon has consistently refused to budge, reverting anyone who attempts to remove it, for example, for Matthew 1:
 * morning of July 2nd 05
 * afternoon of July 2nd 05
 * 7th July 05
 * 9th July 05
 * 20th July 05
 * 22nd July 05
 * 24th August 05 - note that the other minor changes in this diff were done by editors other than SimonP.
 * 31st January 06

Behaviour on the other articles involved is very similar

Statement by party 1
The policies and guidelines involved here are
 * Three revert rule
 * Neutral point of view
 * Consensus
 * Don't include copies of primary sources

SimonP has included the entire source text of a whole chapter of the bible in each of the following articles
 * Matthew 1
 * Matthew 2
 * Matthew 3
 * Matthew 4
 * Matthew 5
 * Matthew 6
 * John 15
 * John 20

This on its own violates Don't include copies of primary sources, but also violates WP:NPOV since it places one translation above another - Simon consistently uses only the King James Version, which is now regarded as heavily outdated by everyone except the fringe King James Only movement. In some chapters, the KJV even contains text that is now near-universally regarded as mediaeval forgery - for example the Comma Johanneum, and Pericope Adulteræ - and so its use in preference to other more recent or scholarly translations completely violates NPOV - as if Simon is saying that the KJV is the most reliable source.

The text, being part of the Bible, happens to be one of the easiest texts to find copies of in the world. In some parts of the world, you only need to go to a hotel room to find it, it is located in numerous locations on the internet, its in virtually every library, both public and private, in the western world, and it is even on wikisource. If Don't include copies of primary sources was ever meant to apply to anything, then this is the one text that it absolutely was created for.

Consensus in the wider community is quite clear that including the text violates Don't include copies of primary sources, and that the text should be removed:
 * Bible_verses/Survey (advertised at "current surveys" for weeks)
 * Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text (advertised on AFD for weeks)

Despite this clear consensus for the removal of this text, Simon repeatedly ignores the consensus, deliberately misconstruing parts of the outcome, reverting its removal, i.e. restoring its presence, even on some occasions violating WP:3RR -   (as pointed out by Theresa Knott - )

A formal ruling needs to be made by the arbitration committee about both Simon's behaviour here, and what ought to be done with the text, otherwise this will go on forever, as Simon has shown absolutely no willingness to ever concede the matter.

I would like it known, that owing to SimonP's angry comment that discussion should have involved "people who actually work in the area", I strongly suspect that SimonP works for an evangelical organisation of some kind, and thus has an ulterior motive to his/her behaviour in this matter.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SimonP
It seems I've now managed to top the ignominy of trying to open a case in my first week as an Arbitrator, by arbitration case brought against me in the second.

I would not object to an ArbCom hearing on Bible verses articles. While I don't think anyone is breaking any policies here, other than some eight month old edit warring, there are some serious issues. It has been almost exactly a year since I added the first of these articles, John 20:16, which was fairly resoundingly kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:16. Since then I have had to deal with no end of strife from a small group of editors who seem to loathe these articles and have employed all means fair and foul to try to get them out of Wikipedia. By my count we have now had 11 VfDs and 6 centralized discussions on Bible verses, all of which have caused a great deal of stress and aggravation, but none of which have ended with anything except the verse in question being kept. The articles are almost universally praised as being accurate, well referenced, and interesting. Yet for almost a year I've been in a near constant battle to prevent them being removed.

As to the more specific debate over source texts, it is based on a misunderstanding of Don't include copies of primary sources. That page was created back when we had full copies of Macbeth and the United States constitution on Wikipedia. The policy was created to get rid of those, not to ban the use of example texts. Lyrics and poetry specifically states that full song lyrics and copies of poems should be included in articles when there are no copyright concerns. I see no reason why Bible chapters, which take up less that a single page a piece in most printed Bibles, should not similarly have the full text. That -Ril- is so keen to have the Bible treated differently from other texts is more a sign of his/her particular POV than anything. It should also be noted that more users than just myself have reverted -Ril- removal of the chapter texts. A quick check of the page history will show that JYolkowski was the first to revert him, and that Kappa did so as well. - SimonP 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Radiant and Rich Farmbrough

 * I'm not sure who is giving up here. -Ril- launched his first attempt to get rid of these articles in July and, except for the periods where he has been blocked, he has pursued this cause ever since. - SimonP 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Marginally outside statement by Doc glasgow
Personally, I’m generally indifferent on the inclusion of text – providing there is no 'ban’ on it. (In a long article dealing with a short text, it would be crazy to exclude it). However, Arbcom should reject this case with prejudice, for the following reasons:
 * 1) This is a content dispute (and a stylistic one at that) and should be handled by editors working on such articles on the articles themselves. That holds as good for biblical as for any other subject.
 * 2) A decision on this issue must be solely governed by the principle 'what makes better, verifiable, NPOV, articles on the subject?’ It must not be governed by rules, polls, bans, or worse editors pushing a pro- or anti Bible POV.
 * 3) I am of the opinion that -Ril- is trolling and certainly pov-pushing. He does not have any interest in editing Bible articles. He states himself I am indeed not a substantial contributor of material to Bible articles. I have little interest in the subject in general …. I am here because I hate sophistry, fancruft, and spam, of which this is a pure and obvious example. (see also ). Until recently, his signature tailed with 'help remove biblecruft’ – hardly a declaration that he strives here for NPOV. Yet this non-contributor has edit warred, mass nominated Bible articles for deletion (,  etc), opened two polls (, and ), three simultaneous centralised discussions  and finally attempted to get a policy pre-emptively 'banning’ certain Bible articles from creation - effectively adding them as a special case to the 'criteria for speedy deletion’ . When one scheme has failed, he has tried another to push his obvious POV.

In short, Arbcom might wish to question the faith in which this request is brought. If they do see fit to take the case, I might suggest they consider discouraging Ril from opening further fronts in his obviously ideologically-driven campaign.--Doc ask?  23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

 * I've renamed this section as I don't think I can truthfully represent my views as external to the dispute following my edits to this arbitration request. Thryduulf 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been a contributor to some of the debates cited by -Ril- after seing a couple advertised on Centralised discussions and then being invited to express my views by -Ril-. Basically, what I see as the heart of the matter is an apparent refusal to accept consensus by SimonP. The place this is best evidenced is Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, where SimonP repeatedly sees different outcomes from debates to (almost?) everyone else.

The pratcial outcome of all these various debates, in the opinion of apprently everyone except SimonP, is:
 * Bible verses that are notable in and of themselves, should have their own article.
 * Most Bible verses are not notable in this way, and articles for these verses should be merged/not created.
 * The entire text of the Bible or of Bible verses does not belong on Wikipedia - but does belong on Wikisource (where several versions already exist - Wikisource:Wikisource:Religeous texts).

The result of SimonP's refusal to act according to conses is edit wars, bad feeling and endless polls and discussions that come up with the same answers, which are preventing good articles being written on these topics. In the interests of brevity, I will not cite evidence here, as it has already been provided by -Ril- in his section above.

The arbcom, imho, should accept this case to look into SimonP's edit warring and refusal to accept consensus.

For full disclosure, I do not edit in the area of religion on Wikipedia as I'm not that interested in it. What I am interested in is seeing a comprehenisve encylopaedia, which obviously inlcudes articles on religion. I am interested in harmonious, consensus-driven editing to achieve this. I am also interested in maintaining the separation between Wikipedia and Wikisource, following Don't include copies of primary sources, as this will (imo) strengthen the goal of Wikipedia to become the best free-content encyclopaedia and Wikisource to become the best library of free content documents. I sadly can't see any way to resolve this dispute without arbcom intervention. Thryduulf 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ps: I would appreciate a note on my talk page if this case is accepted.
 * Have diffs for "SimonP's edit warring and refusal to accept consensus"? Dmcdevit·t 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Links as requested

 * Refusal to accept consensus here, where Inshaneee writes a summary of the repetitive debate backed by Thryduulf and myself, and countered by a wide variety of unsourced objections by SimonP. Simon's claims have included the vacuous truth that "there is no official policy on bible verses", and seem to rely on the fallacy that a "keep" vote on AFD precludes merging. Don't include copies of primary sources is one of our older guidelines and seems relevant.
 * Some evidence of edit warring here and here. There's probably more. I'm hardly involved in bible-related articles myself but was asked to comment at some point by -Ril- and Inshaneee.
 * For more edit warring, a cursory glance over SimonP's contribs for last month leads us to Matthew 1, Matthew 5, John 15 and John 20. Most aren't full-scale revert wars because generally the other editor gives up quickly after being reverted by SimonP, but it does appear to be an attempt to assert WP:OWNership.
 * &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Rich Farmbrough.
Insofar as this is a content dispute it should be rejected. It does however raise the hoary question of one side prevailing because "generally the other editor gives up" (Radiant) which again is not for this forum, but should be thrashed out somewhere. Rich  Farmbrough. 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Ilyanep
Wow...my first outside view in an ArbCom case. I'll make it quick.

I agree with Thryduulf's points. Only verses notable by themselves should be included, everything else belongs in Wikisource. Also, I noted as I was reading this case that there hasn't even been an RfC, so I would suggest sending it that way. Hope I added something useful. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  22:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see what benefit an RfC would bring. There is already consensus regarding the content, consensus that there is a consensus and consensus that SimonP's actions are against consensus. Do we need to get a consensus that acting against consensus isn't good? Thryduulf 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A user conduct RfC then? It looks like the user conduct issue in and of itself jumped straight to ArbCom and people are trying to couple it with the bible issue. I'm not supporting anyone, just saying. (BTW, if there is a problem w/ the conversation here, feel free to move my comment to the talk page). &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify: IMO, a user conduct RfC could tell us how to deal with this instead of just finding facts before an RfAr is made. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mostly outside view by JzG
This is not really a content dispute, it's about refusal to accept consensus. The summary by -Ril- is correct: even if consensus existed for inclusion of whole chapter text (which it clearly does not), the use of KJV specifically violates WP:NPOV. It is far better in my view to link to multiple versions on Wikisource and let readers make up their own minds (or at least let them choose their favourite version - mine is the NIV). Whether resolution requires Arbcom I wouldn't like to say, but the problem is clearly to my mind the behaviour of SimonP in relation to this one area (he is a valued editor in many areas). If a better way of resolving this without Arbcom can be suggested, then I'm all for it. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Urgent Injunction required
Ryan delaney keeps deleting parts of Thryduulf's statement, and parts of mine, in this request. This results in a severe distortion of what kind of case is being presented here. Consequently, I urgently request that the Arbitration committee ban him from editing this page until the issue is settled. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Compare the current evidence regarding the content dispute comments with that presented in this version. Thryduulf 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Diffs relating to this request:
 * Ryan removes information
 * Restored by -Ril-
 * Restoration reverted by Ryan
 * Ryan removes comments relating to this request by Robert McClenon, Phroziac and Jtkiefer
 * Ryan has also removed other people's comments on another arbitration request . Thryduulf 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/3/3/0)

 * Recuse, as before. Dmcdevit·t 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Charles Matthews 16:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject. Premature; this is still a content dispute. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Recuse, just in case it wasn't obvious. - SimonP 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject &mdash; content dispute ➥the Epopt 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject. What is within our jurisdiction is minor.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I clearly wasn't thinking straight.  Comes of trying to think while gripped with flu.  Accept per James. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. The allegations of ownership and ignoring consensus are troubling. James F. (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject, content dispute, outside our mandate. Neutralitytalk 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept to sort out expressions of community consensus and response to them. Fred Bauder 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept purely to address the user conduct and emphatically not content dispute. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Copies of texts
1) Don't include copies of primary sources discourages extensive quotations of text of any document. Such material may be placed at Wikisource and linked to.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Respect for community decision making
2) Users are expected to respect decision making by the community, see Consensus.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) SimonP has created and vigorously defended a series of articles based on the Canonical Gospels such as Matthew 1:5 and Matthew 1:9. These articles have been the subject of repeated Requests for deletion and commentary, see Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. Issues include inclusion of the entire text of chapters, see Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text and Bible verses/Survey; use of the King James (Authorised) Version only, and creation of articles regarding single verses, see Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew and Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

SimonP cautioned
4) SimonP is cautioned to respond appropriately to the expressed community consensus.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement
No enforcement clauses