1449:. It is the worst kind of vandalism, since it is highly invasive while cloaking itself in a patina of legality. It is important that the arbitration committee see through some of the careless thinking (such as that of RickK and others) that suggests that what happened on the Persian articles was merely a “round-robin revert war” by Slrubenstein and his “accomplices” to get their way concerning BCE/CE. It is very far from that. For my part, I do not accept the label “accomplice” of anyone. As my evidence shows, I have experienced Jguk’s POV on eras since January. Leaving aside the motives of Slrubenstein—I know no better than RickK what they might have been—we have a conscientious new author, SouthernComfort, who evidently saw the logic of Slrubenstein’s proposal that BCE/CE was NPOV. He may have overstepped his bounds in his zeal to change to that notation. However, I am sure a courteous word to him would have sufficed to get him to alter his approach.
1325:. I have checked WP policy and have found nothing which states that my changing the convention from BC/AD to BCE/CE in Iran-related articles is wrong. Despite my attempts to communicate with him, he refused to do so and insisted on maintaining the BC/AD convention based upon non-existent policy and would not allow the issue to be left to the consensus of editors involved with the articles in question. As has been stated by others, he proceeded to revert every single article where I had changed the convention from BC/AD to BCE/CE. I feel that this behavior is not in accordance with the spirit of WP.
1309:
non-Christian cultures. Furthermore, specifically in regards to Iran-related articles, the BCE/CE convention is well established in the fields of Near
Eastern/Oriental studies, and the BC/AD convention makes absolutely no sense in regards to these articles, since Iranian history is not Christian, nor has Iran (and it's civilizations and dynasties) ever been Christian. I have also argued that if there is any dispute as to which convention is most appropriate as regards these articles, that it should be left to the consensus of those editors involved with these specific articles.
1338:
asked to see this policy, my request was ignored. The fact remains that I have not acted against WP policy, nor do I have any desire to impose BCE/CE upon all WP articles. However, as with
Slrubenstein, I believe that there are articles where BCE/CE is more appropriate and justified (and more NPOV) than BC/AD, such as Iranian and Jewish history and religion, which are clearly non-Christian, and with such articles I will continue to change the convention from BC/AD to BCE/CE. There is nothing in WP policy which prohibits this action.
1153:
originally wrote. Perusing the article histories of the articles proves that such is not the case. When Jguk reverted their changes, they began a round-robin revert war with him, and when that failed, because
Violetriga joined in with Jguk to prevent this attempt at violating the vote on the subject, they decided to write this RfAr against Jguk. This is bogus, they, in fact, should have an arbcomm ruling against them for making changes without support.
1214:
Christian figures); modified many pages to match his desired usage; unilaterally changed the MoS to declare his usage correct; continually reverts pages to match his usage; and acted as a general obstructionist to the conduct of a survey around the issue. Moreover, Jguk has tried to "game" WP in several ways to act vindictively against people who disagree with him on this issue (a spurious VfD on an article about me; spurious RfC's against myself and
554:
last count. While most editors in general demonstrated a preference for BCE/CE as the academic standard, many of these same editors voted against the proposed policy as they did not want to completely eliminate BC/AD as an option. Those rejecting
Slrubenstein's systemwide proposal for the most part
1732:
5) At times the proper implementation of
Knowledge (XXG)'s NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these cases, no attempts to dictate the proper solution, whether coming from the Arbitration Committee or from a mechanism such
1644:
2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a
Knowledge (XXG) editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from
1337:
non-Christian articles, regardless of editorial consensus, this too is false. I have never made such statements. I have not changed dating conventions in non-Iranian articles, nor have I attempted to do so. As with Jguk, both RickK and
Violetriga stated that my actions were against WP policy. When I
1117:
article, then re-arranging in a chronological treatment). Two hours or so after I posted this new version, he changed it! I'm not sifting through
Knowledge (XXG) looking for BC/AD dates to change; I'm making edits based on my interests and skills. If Jguk wants to argue about BC/AD usage in articles
1328:
In response to RickK's accusations, they are false. I have never stated that "all articles about non-Christian subject matter must be BCE." I have, however, argued that there are articles where BCE/CE is more appropriate and warranted than BC/AD, e.g. Iran-related articles, and that if there is any
1238:
I accidentally stumbled upon one of the articles that this has been going on and proceeded to read the correspondence between
Southern Comfort and Jguk. Southern Comfort has substantiated his edits with the reasonable argument that using BCE and CE in articles dealing with non-Christian cultures is
1222:
Continuing on the same line, I have also noticed that Jguk has a tendency of inserting commonwealth spellings into articles, even to the point of revert wars around the issue. I have seen a number of cases where he has made edits that consist of nothing other than a spelling change or two from USA
521:
Slrubenstein recently made a proposal to replace all instances of BC/AD in WP with BCE/CE. That proposal failed (and there was a lot of acrimonious discussion surrounding it). Unfortunately a small number of editors do not accept the failure of the proposal and are trying to implement it on a small
1275:
Firstly, I should state that I consider jguk a friend. I have worked with him very productively on cricket articles, and consider him a good editor. Without wanting to form an opinion on this case (I certainly consider
Slrubenstein and Southern Comfort equally culpable), it should be noted that
1257:
Addendum: Now that this has moved to real arbitration, I'd just like to say that I don't see why anybody should be punished in any way (nor how could the Arbitration Committe decide questions of style). IMHO, all that is needed is a clear restatement of some basic principles that have succesfully
1171:
Well, I haven't followed these developments, so I am having difficulties keeping up with RickK's argument without evidence. I have no special preference for either dating system and as an (20th Century) historian, I use both interchangebly. And while I realize the Committee dosen't do content, I
126:
I have not taken other steps because they would be pointless. Jguk is not merely arguing with editors over a partcular page; he is going from page to page making the same change everywhere. He does not explain his change on the talk page, and he does not respond to comments on the talk page. I
1213:
Jguk was the most active participant in the recent "style wars"—i.e. the issue of whether styles ("His Holiness", "Her Majesty", etc) should be used in biographical articles, particularly prefixed to the initial mention. Jguk vociferously advocated their use (but only among his favored European
1152:
are his accomplices in this practice. They are trying to make the claim that all articles about non-Christian subject matter must be BCE, and are using the disingenuous, but false, contention that the changes should be made because that was what the original authors of the articles they changed
1441:
and others, shows, Jguk has made hundreds of edits and reverts with respect to eras dating for months prior to the recent “revert war” on the Persian pages. With many of these, his edit summaries show that he is attempting to apply the letter of the MoS guideline regarding eras: consistency.
1108:
I've added myself to this dispute because I'm extremely upset by Jguk's monitoring of my edit history and intervening to change to BC/AD dates whenever I post something. I think I've been editing on Knowledge (XXG) for a year now, and I've routinely been using BCE/CE dates, with no protest from
1308:
I would like to first state, for the record, what my intentions are in regards to this issue of dating conventions. In short, my argument is that BCE/CE is appropriate and justified in articles having no connection to Christianity, e.g. Iranian and Jewish history and civilization, and other
522:
number of articles. Since I have been at WP, we have followed the rule not to change an article that consistently uses BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation and vice versa. All I have done is reverted recent changes from BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation in line with current practice.
177:
Everyone is well aware of the controversy concerning my proposal. Clearly, the community is divided, but most people disagree with me that BCE and CE should be the NPOV standard. But this is not the issue at hand. Now the question is, are we allowed to use BCE/CE
300:
has been putting a lot of work into Persia-related artcles. Since Persia/Iran are non-Christian countries, BCE and CE are entirely appropriate. Jguk's actions in my opinion can be interpreted only as a pattern of harassment. He has gone to almost every article
42:
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
1794:
8.1) Both Jguk and Southerncomfort edited articles to change BC/BCE and AD/CE references to their preferred style. This was done in some cases to make articles consistent, but in other cases, involved changing date systems outright, which was against policy.
1239:
more neutral. OTOH, Jguk's only argument beyond (often incorrectly) quoting policy has been that readers won't know what CE and BCE means. By that reasoning, we should not use multisillable words. Maybe not enough people are aware of the existence of the
1258:
guided us through the years — consistency is less important than accuracy and good will among editors; popularity is not Knowledge (XXG)'s goal but rather a welcome byproduct of it being a good encyclopedia. RfC would've probably served better for that.
1382:
Amicus curiae breif not in favor of any party: This case should be split before any arbitration continues. Two major issues I have identified are: 1. Accusassions of Harrasment ("Edit Wars") and 2. Appropriateness of the use of diffrent dating systems.
394:
use "BCE and CE" and he is imposing his POV on these articles. Aside from POV warring, it is forcing good editors to waste a lot of time. The only solution I can see is banning him from articles on Jewish, Muslim, and Persian-related topics.
389:
Jguk seems to know something about cricket. But he is not a historian and has expressed no knowledge whatesoever of Judaism and Jewish history, Islam and Islamic history, Persia and Persian history. His POV is that Knowledge (XXG)
525:
I suggest ArbCom reminds Slrubenstein and other users that when a proposed policy has had a full airing and does not reach consensus then it should not be implemented, and all users have the right to revert any such edits on sight.
1626:. The prescriptions of Knowledge (XXG)'s manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article."
221:. Jayjg disagreed with my change and explained why, ending the disagreement between me and Jayjg. It was at this time, however, that Jguk turned his attention to the Bible article, and changed BCE to BC and CE to AD. He has
1143:
When Slrubenstein discovered that his attempt to force a mass reversion of BE to BCE and AD to CE had failed, and was losing the vote he himself called, he decided to unilaterally go around making changes to articles anyway.
1276:
many of the links above are not actually the blanket changes that Slr and MPerel would have you believe. Most, I would say, are either revertions of changes made without consensus by Southern Comfort or other editors (e.g.
148:
The situations in question are not over complex issues of wording or content, but the simple issue of: should this particular article use BCE/CE, or BC/AD. This is the kind of dispute that needs arbitration, not mediation.
138:
page, when JimWae changed BC and AD to BCE and CE. Someone reverted him; I reverted back and explained why. A very lengthy debate involving many people ensued. At one point, a couple of people proposed a compromise: use
1766:
563:
standard. Jguk has interpreted this to mean opposite of what it means, that all dates should now be BC/AD. Even in specific cases where the consensus found it was more NPOV in a particular article to use BCE/CE (see
1223:
to UK spelling of a few words, in articles that otherwise use USA spellings. While the choice of spelling is pretty well trivial, I think Jguk's obsession around this characterizes his editing pattern in most topics.
1452:
Instead, we have the peremptory reverts of Jguk—a form of activity he has been engaging in for many months. As the evidence shows, his behaviour with respect to BCE/CE is contrary to what Knowledge (XXG) stands for:
480:
When Slrubenstein discovered that his attempt to force a mass reversion of BE to BCE and AD to CE had failed, and was losing the vote he himself called, he decided to unilaterally go around making changes to articles
1218:
for advocating a different MoS policy). Furthermore, much as several users report relative to this RfA, Jguk developed a habit of watching my edit history to capriciously revert changes, simply because I made them.
1205:
I am not directly involved in the current RfA against Jguk relative to the BCE/CE vs. BC/AD usage issue. I have not modified any pages in regard to that issue, nor expressed any opinion on best usage. However, I
1770:
579:
I'm not sure jguk needs to be banned from particular articles, but perhaps he should be prohibited from changing BCE/CE to BC/AD since he is clearly on a campaign pushing his personal POV systemwide.
457:
be some places where its use is appropriate. Clearly, the people who have contributed most to articles on Jewish and Persian themes agree that BCE and CE are appropriate in these specific contexts.
1425:
in this matter, I’ve since thought about this case further. I wish to make a statement about its import. I should also like to comment on certain points made by others in the foregoing statements.
1597:
1428:
During my association with Jguk for almost five months, I’ve reflected about his motives relating to Knowledge (XXG). While he may have done some good as an editor in the past, I believe that,
586:
that permits both, Jguk has been unilateraly changing BCE/CE to BC/AD systemwide. Here is a sampling since February (only the tip of the iceberg) even predating Slrubenstein's policy proposal:
55:
1762:
551:
1359:
1109:
anyone. I remonstrated with Jguk about his behavior re some of the Iranian pages and now I'm on his "hit list". It found it particularly irritating to have him intervene in the
485:
This is a flat-out lie. It is not a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding, it is simply a flasehood. I did not go about changing articles from BC to BCE and AD to CE. I
1422:
48:
1757:
both on the WikiEN-l mailing list and on Knowledge (XXG) raised the question of whether the use of AD and BC rather than CE and BCE in general articles violated NPOV, see
1758:
583:
547:
424:
I want Knowledge (XXG) to accept a general policy that BC ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View and
198:
1811:
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.
1312:
Jguk, however, is not involved with Iran-related articles and decided to immediately revert my changes (from BC/AD to BCE/CE) without proper discussion (please see
1690:
are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of
1246:
Seems to me like Southern Comfort is trying to make the encyclopaedia better and Jguk is pushing his POV on subjects on which he isn't particularly knowledgable.
44:
854:
1645:
American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is
1172:
still would like it to note certain trends in the scholarship which I compiled at the request of SlR. The only point I wish to make is that this isn't
182:? Since I forwarded my proposal, Jguk has been behaving in a very aggressive manner. I am not exactly sure what is happening, but have two theories;
1837:
214:
article has used BCE/CE for a long time. On 23:03, 17 May 2005 I changed the date for the close of the Hebrew Bible canon from 100 CE to 200 CE
1572:
1556:
572:), Jguk refused to allow BCE/CE, even rejecting the widely accepted compromise of BC/BCE incorporating both. He has an obvious hangup about
1711:
17:
1445:
Jguk has, all the while, shown himself incapable of working in a consensus framework. What he is doing with respect to BCE/CE resembles a
426:
should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.
806:
428:
In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead.
193:
he is targeting articles of Jewish, Muslim, and Persian content — where BCE and CE are appropriate — and changing BCE to BC and CE to AD
1707:
1703:
1733:
as a poll, will be helpful. All that can be done is to insist that the participants in the dispute remain civil and respectful.
1691:
1329:
dispute it should be left to the consensus of editors involved with those specific articles. If he is implying that I wish to
119:
1538:: Not to judge the actions of either party in particular but to consider the issue of consensus and disputed style changes.
1459:
1394:: Not to judge the actions of either party in particular but to consider the issue of consensus and disputed style changes.
1224:
1199:
1815:
3) Jguk, Southerncomfort, and other involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies (as described in FOF 8)
1313:
156:
circumstance under which Wikipedians could use BCE/CE, despite the fact that this is permitted by the style guidelines.
1699:
1620:
1668:
3) Courtesy between Knowledge (XXG) editors is important, especially with respect to matters which are in dispute.
413:
Jguk writes, "Slrubenstein recently made a proposal to replace all instances of BC/AD in WP with BCE/CE." This is
1110:
914:
229:
page, although several other editors have explained why the article should use BCE and CE. See this discussion:
1624:
606:
202:
1695:
1090:
1006:
436:
348:
1478:
582:
Even though there is no current policy standardizing a preference of one over the other, only a nonbinding
1180:
which largely forms the basis for the opinion he and others hold on the use of dating systems. Please see
814:
433:
400:
161:
1782:
1467:
1185:
774:
569:
465:
It is Jguk who wants to impose a non-existing proposal, that BCE and CE be banned from Knowledge (XXG).
1687:
1463:
1765:
which was evenly divided leaving the existing policy, both styles are acceptable, unchanged. See also
152:
Based on Jguk's comments on my proposal and in edit summaries, it seems clear that he can conceive of
1552:
Accept (to look into issues of who's been doing things unilaterally, as opposed to issues of policy.
1401:
Accept (to look into issues of who's been doing things unilaterally, as opposed to issues of policy.
1366:
1352:
1339:
1302:
1149:
782:
678:
302:
297:
187:
90:
1113:
article which I had just completely revised (merging the old version and material deleted from the
790:
694:
642:
1369:
1342:
1295:
1262:
1252:
1192:
1130:
576:, even refusing to allow "Before the Common Era" as the first definition on the BCE disambig page.
533:
403:
197:
Either way, the effect is to eliminate any usage of BCE/CE at Knowledge (XXG). This violates the
164:
1062:
996:
976:
652:
1553:
1402:
1215:
131:
reflect a conflict on one page that could be mediated, but the crudest form of POV warrioring.
1754:
1569:
429:
396:
171:
157:
74:
1778:
1471:
1562:
1292:
1082:
1052:
934:
798:
758:
734:
702:
201:, which states that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable" (see
1173:
1122:, fine. I'll stay out of it, thank you. But I protest against being made the target of his
1578:
1539:
1526:
1511:
1483:
1395:
1363:
1349:
1181:
1157:
956:
830:
614:
98:(I wish to become involved in response to certain inaccurate statements made on this page)
1434:. I believe that the arbitration decision will be important to correct this situation.
47:, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
1529:
1514:
946:
446:
be used. Jguk's statement is just another example of his campaign to misrepresent me.
1623:
for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see
322:
On some articles, there has been the kind of edit-war that occured on the Bible page:
82:(I am involving myself so as to make the statement below in protest of Jguk's actions)
1831:
1488:
Whatever the outcome of this arbitration, I do hope it will take this into account.
1386:
as of 19:03, 24 May 2005 UTC, we have two conflicting arbitration acceptance votes:
1546:
1474:
1240:
986:
225:
explained his changes (all of which are to change BCE to BC and CE to AD) on the
1489:
1415:
1376:
1289:
1269:
1177:
1145:
750:
540:
95:
79:
1774:
1653:, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.
1523:
1508:
1259:
1249:
1232:
1154:
1137:
838:
573:
226:
1189:
1165:
1127:
1040:
1030:
622:
590:
530:
325:
85:
62:
1771:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/proposed_revision#Eras
1767:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision
1410:
To continue to arbitration proceedings like this would confuse the issue.
497:
BC/AD, and restored them to their previous version. Be that as it may, I
1358:
My involvement has been explained on various talk pages. I have created
766:
710:
686:
660:
489:
go to articles where, within the last week or so, Jguk had changed dates
190:), looking at articles we have edited and changing BCE to BC and CE to AD
1437:
This case did not start on the Jesus pages, as Slrubenstein states. As
860:*I love this one, imposing the Christian calendar on the Hebrew calendar
966:
922:
726:
1431:
with respect to BCE/CE, he is functioning as little more than a vandal
1646:
846:
718:
1522:
to investigate the mass of confusion that surrounds this issue. --
468:
Jguk is either a POV warrior, or harassing me and SouthernComfort.
219:
Note: I did not change the dating system, I only changed the number
145:(it is from archived talk; the time was 16:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)).
1650:
1114:
1070:
1022:
894:
868:
742:
632:
598:
565:
449:
Be that as it may, the fact that my proposal has not been adopted
211:
135:
1728:
Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue
1210:
had some experience with Jguk that is likely to be illustrative.
822:
668:
451:
does not mean that "BCE and CE" are banned from Knowledge (XXG)
459:
No one is implimenting a non-existing policy. Many articles
230:
1316:). He also accused me of violating WP policy and trolling
442:
It is clear that there are places where I think AD and BC
186:
he is harassing me and people he identifies with me (e.g.
1577:
Recuse - I'm currently involved in a dispute with Jguk --
1500:
1360:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras
1627:
1323:
1321:
1319:
1317:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1098:
1096:
1094:
1086:
1078:
1076:
1074:
1066:
1058:
1056:
1048:
1046:
1044:
1036:
1034:
1026:
1018:
1016:
1014:
1012:
1010:
1002:
1000:
992:
990:
982:
980:
972:
970:
962:
960:
952:
950:
942:
940:
938:
930:
928:
926:
918:
910:
908:
906:
904:
902:
900:
898:
890:
888:
886:
884:
882:
880:
878:
876:
874:
872:
858:
850:
842:
834:
826:
818:
810:
802:
794:
786:
778:
770:
762:
754:
746:
738:
730:
722:
714:
706:
698:
690:
682:
674:
672:
664:
656:
648:
646:
638:
636:
628:
626:
618:
610:
602:
594:
577:
420:
My proposal in short, was this (emphasis in original):
385:
376:
367:
358:
344:
335:
318:
316:
314:
312:
310:
308:
306:
293:
285:
276:
267:
258:
249:
240:
215:
113:
1501:
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)
103:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
54:
Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at
1777:
and its external links. There is a proposed vote at
548:
proposed to make BCE/CE the Knowledge (XXG) standard
143:. I accepted this compromise but Jguk refused, see
1759:
Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate
199:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
453:. The style manual permits it, and clearly there
305:has worked on, to change BCE to BC and CE to AD:
855:Knowledge (XXG):Selected anniversaries/October 7
509:about non-Christian peoples and their history.
1601:(vote counts and comments are there as well)
289:He has not limited himself to Jewish topics:
8:
1761:. An extended discussion was followed by a
1470:, and work towards the goal of creating an
1738:Passed 4 to 1 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
1722:Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
1676:Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
1658:Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
1634:Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
127:believe that his pattern of behavior does
51:. Evidence is more useful than comments.
1820:Passed 4 to 1 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
1800:Passed 4 to 1 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
1789:Passed 5 to 2 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
1545:Accept. I think this needs looking into.
511:No policy in Knowledge (XXG) forbids this
1438:
1182:Talk:Common_Era#Professional_scholarship
570:a 2/3 majority favored BCE/CE over BC/AD
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration
1362:as an attempt to solve the edit wars.
1619:1) Knowledge (XXG) has established a
7:
1769:(proposed revision to policy is at
1176:on SlR's part, rather it is (also)
807:Chronology of the Ancient Near East
24:
1838:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration cases
1507:I await a response from Jguk. --
501:change BC to BCE and AD to CE in
118:Confirmation that other steps in
1781:with an extended discussion at
1621:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
1282:) or consistency changes (e.g.
1682:Revert wars considered harmful
1:
1375:Statement by outside party:
1314:Talk:List of kings of Persia
559:, but against making it the
1586:Temporary injunction (none)
472:Response to RickK's comment
134:All of this started on the
38:on 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
30:on 01:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
1854:
1160:22:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
503:clearly appropriate cases,
409:Response to Jguk's comment
1783:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Eras
1565:11:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
1549:22:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
1542:17:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
1398:17:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
1227:23:05, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
1111:Islam and other religions
915:Islam and other religions
552:split nearly evenly 73-90
550:, editors were basically
505:namely articles that are
1581:03:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1573:21:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1557:08:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1532:00:04, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
1517:15:08, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
1492:17:19, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
1405:08:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1370:22:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1343:19:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1296:10:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1263:09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
1253:06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1225:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
1200:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
1193:23:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
1131:08:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1091:Template:Arsacid dynasty
607:Greek Conquests in India
534:16:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
437:22:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
404:14:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
165:15:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
1596:All numbering based on
1007:List of kings of Persia
557:were not against BCE/CE
471:
408:
349:List of kings of Persia
1408:
815:First dynasty of Egypt
1496:Preliminary decisions
1479:welcoming environment
1388:
1118:to which he actually
1104:Statement by Party #3
775:Kings of the Hittites
292:Islam related pages:
188:User: SouthernComfort
141:both BCE/CE and BC/AD
1779:Knowledge (XXG):Eras
1704:requests for comment
1150:User:SouthernComfort
783:History of the Kurds
679:History of gardening
517:Statement by party 2
303:User:SouthernComfort
298:User:SouthernComfort
91:User:SouthernComfort
864:And more recently:
791:Minoan civilization
695:Alexander the Great
643:Chandragupta Maurya
1755:User: Slrubenstein
1692:dispute resolution
1598:/Proposed decision
1458:Those who edit in
1439:evidence by Mperel
1186:a related exchange
1063:Achaemenid dynasty
997:Darius I of Persia
977:Cyrus II of Persia
653:Emperor Wen of Han
546:When Slrubenstein
381:19:23, 28 Feb 2005
372:11:46, 19 May 2005
363:08:14, 22 May 2005
354:08:43, 22 May 2005
340:08:42, 22 May 2005
331:08:16, 22 May 2005
281:09:01, 22 May 2005
272:08:07, 21 May 2005
263:15:41, 20 May 2005
254:06:46, 20 May 2005
245:19:33, 19 May 2005
236:12:29, 19 May 2005
120:dispute resolution
108:14:18, 22 May 2005
56:/Proposed decision
1293:(Rabbit and pork)
1243:Knowledge (XXG)?
1174:original research
172:User:Slrubenstein
75:User:Slrubenstein
1845:
1744:Findings of Fact
1477:, should find a
1083:Sassanid dynasty
1053:Seleucid dynasty
935:Hamadan Province
799:Kingdom of Judah
759:Ethnic cleansing
735:Direct democracy
703:Musical notation
69:Involved parties
1853:
1852:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1828:
1827:
1808:
1751:
1746:
1730:
1684:
1666:
1642:
1640:Optional styles
1617:
1612:
1607:
1593:
1588:
1503:
1498:
1419:
1380:
1356:
1340:SouthernComfort
1306:
1303:SouthernComfort
1273:
1236:
1203:
1169:
1141:
1106:
957:History of Iran
831:Native American
615:Ancient history
544:
519:
474:
463:use BCE and CE.
411:
175:
124:
122:have been tried
105:
71:
66:
39:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1851:
1849:
1841:
1840:
1830:
1829:
1825:
1823:
1822:
1807:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1792:
1791:
1750:
1747:
1745:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1717:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1671:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1641:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1608:
1606:
1603:
1592:
1591:Final decision
1589:
1587:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1575:
1566:
1559:
1550:
1543:
1533:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1486:
1485:
1418:
1412:
1407:
1406:
1399:
1379:
1373:
1355:
1346:
1305:
1299:
1272:
1266:
1235:
1229:
1202:
1196:
1168:
1162:
1140:
1134:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1088:
1080:
1068:
1060:
1050:
1038:
1028:
1020:
1004:
994:
984:
974:
964:
954:
947:Persian Empire
944:
932:
920:
912:
892:
862:
861:
852:
844:
836:
828:
820:
812:
804:
796:
788:
780:
772:
764:
756:
748:
740:
732:
724:
716:
708:
700:
692:
684:
676:
666:
658:
650:
640:
630:
620:
612:
604:
596:
543:
537:
529:Kind regards,
518:
515:
483:
482:
476:RickK writes
473:
470:
440:
439:
410:
407:
383:
382:
374:
373:
365:
364:
356:
355:
342:
341:
333:
332:
283:
282:
274:
273:
265:
264:
256:
255:
247:
246:
238:
237:
195:
194:
191:
174:
168:
123:
116:
112:Notified Jguk
110:
109:
104:
101:
100:
99:
93:
88:
83:
77:
70:
67:
65:
60:
34:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1850:
1839:
1836:
1835:
1833:
1826:
1821:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1813:
1812:
1805:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1749:BCE-CE Debate
1748:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1727:
1723:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1669:
1663:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1652:
1648:
1639:
1635:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1628:
1625:
1622:
1614:
1609:
1604:
1602:
1600:
1599:
1590:
1585:
1580:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1564:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1534:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1495:
1493:
1491:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1448:
1443:
1440:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1426:
1424:
1421:Having given
1417:
1414:Statement by
1413:
1411:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1378:
1374:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1354:
1351:
1348:Statement by
1347:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1336:
1332:
1326:
1324:
1322:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1310:
1304:
1301:Statement by
1300:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1271:
1268:Statement by
1267:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1234:
1231:Statement by
1230:
1228:
1226:
1220:
1217:
1211:
1209:
1201:
1198:Statement by
1197:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1167:
1164:Statement by
1163:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1151:
1147:
1139:
1136:Statement by
1135:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1103:
1099:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1079:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1017:
1015:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1001:
998:
995:
993:
991:
988:
985:
983:
981:
978:
975:
973:
971:
968:
965:
963:
961:
958:
955:
953:
951:
948:
945:
943:
941:
939:
936:
933:
931:
929:
927:
924:
921:
919:
916:
913:
911:
909:
907:
905:
903:
901:
899:
896:
893:
891:
889:
887:
885:
883:
881:
879:
877:
875:
873:
870:
867:
866:
865:
859:
856:
853:
851:
848:
845:
843:
840:
837:
835:
832:
829:
827:
824:
821:
819:
816:
813:
811:
808:
805:
803:
800:
797:
795:
792:
789:
787:
784:
781:
779:
776:
773:
771:
768:
765:
763:
760:
757:
755:
752:
749:
747:
744:
741:
739:
736:
733:
731:
728:
725:
723:
720:
717:
715:
712:
709:
707:
704:
701:
699:
696:
693:
691:
688:
685:
683:
680:
677:
675:
673:
670:
667:
665:
662:
659:
657:
654:
651:
649:
647:
644:
641:
639:
637:
634:
631:
629:
627:
624:
621:
619:
616:
613:
611:
608:
605:
603:
600:
597:
595:
592:
589:
588:
587:
585:
580:
578:
575:
571:
567:
562:
558:
553:
549:
542:
539:Statement by
538:
536:
535:
532:
527:
523:
516:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
479:
478:
477:
469:
466:
464:
462:
456:
452:
447:
445:
438:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
418:
416:
406:
405:
402:
398:
393:
387:
386:
380:
379:
378:
377:
371:
370:
369:
368:
362:
361:
360:
359:
353:
352:
351:
350:
346:
345:
339:
338:
337:
336:
330:
329:
328:
327:
323:
320:
319:
317:
315:
313:
311:
309:
307:
304:
299:
295:
294:
290:
287:
286:
280:
279:
278:
277:
271:
270:
269:
268:
262:
261:
260:
259:
253:
252:
251:
250:
244:
243:
242:
241:
235:
234:
233:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
209:
205:
203:
200:
192:
189:
185:
184:
183:
181:
173:
170:Statement by
169:
167:
166:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
144:
142:
137:
132:
130:
121:
117:
115:
114:
107:
106:
102:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
81:
78:
76:
73:
72:
68:
64:
61:
59:
57:
52:
50:
46:
40:
37:
32:
29:
19:
1824:
1819:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1799:
1793:
1788:
1752:
1737:
1731:
1721:
1716:
1685:
1675:
1670:
1667:
1657:
1649:rather than
1643:
1633:
1618:
1595:
1594:
1570:David Gerard
1535:
1519:
1506:
1487:
1475:encyclopedia
1457:
1451:
1446:
1444:
1436:
1430:
1429:
1427:
1420:
1409:
1391:
1385:
1381:
1357:
1334:
1333:BCE/CE upon
1330:
1327:
1311:
1307:
1274:
1256:
1248:
1245:
1237:
1221:
1212:
1207:
1204:
1170:
1142:
1123:
1119:
1107:
987:Qom Province
863:
581:
560:
556:
545:
528:
524:
520:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
484:
475:
467:
460:
458:
454:
450:
448:
443:
441:
430:Slrubenstein
425:
419:
414:
412:
397:Slrubenstein
391:
388:
384:
375:
366:
357:
347:
343:
334:
324:
321:
296:
291:
288:
284:
275:
266:
257:
248:
239:
222:
218:
207:
206:
196:
179:
176:
158:Slrubenstein
153:
151:
147:
140:
133:
128:
125:
111:
53:
41:
35:
33:
27:
25:
1712:arbitration
1696:negotiation
1688:Revert wars
1615:Style guide
1563:Fred Bauder
1364:violet/riga
1350:violet/riga
1178:Peer Review
1146:User:Sunray
1120:contributes
751:Water clock
584:style guide
227:Talk: Bible
96:User:Sunray
80:User:MPerel
36:Case Closed
28:Case Opened
1775:Common Era
1694:, such as
1605:Principles
1540:Neutrality
1460:good faith
1396:Neutrality
839:Diodotus I
507:explicitly
1708:mediation
1568:Accept -
1472:impartial
1468:consensus
1216:User:Whig
1041:Hormozgan
1031:Khuzestan
623:Zoroaster
591:Silk Road
326:Khuzestan
86:User:Zora
63:User:Jguk
49:/Evidence
45:Talk page
1832:Category
1806:Remedies
1664:Courtesy
1610:Template
1547:→Raul654
1464:civility
1423:evidence
767:Diadochi
711:Afrasiab
687:Persians
661:Portugal
417:not so.
392:must not
208:Evidence
1773:); and
1700:surveys
1561:Accept
1466:, seek
1462:, show
1447:crusade
1124:crusade
967:Hamadan
923:Parthia
727:Ukraine
493:BCE/CE
481:anyway.
461:already
415:clearly
1647:colour
1536:Accept
1520:Accept
1490:Sunray
1416:Sunray
1392:Accept
1377:tznkai
1290:Smoddy
1270:Smoddy
1241:simple
847:Apollo
719:Taoism
568:where
541:MPerel
180:at all
1710:, or
1651:color
1331:force
1260:Zocky
1250:Zocky
1233:Zocky
1138:RickK
1115:Islam
1071:Medes
1023:Ahvaz
895:Bible
869:Jesus
743:Moses
633:Aryan
599:Bihar
566:Jesus
434:Talk
401:Talk
223:never
212:Bible
162:Talk
136:Jesus
16:<
1763:vote
1554:Ambi
1530:🇪🇺
1524:Grun
1515:🇪🇺
1509:Grun
1403:Ambi
1288:).
1285:and
1279:and
1208:have
1190:El_C
1184:and
1166:El_C
1155:Rick
1148:and
1128:Zora
823:Hera
669:Oman
561:only
531:jguk
499:will
491:from
455:must
444:must
210:The
1753:1)
1686:4)
1579:mav
1367:(t)
1353:(t)
1335:all
574:BCE
487:did
432:|
399:|
217:.
160:|
129:not
58:.
1834::
1714:.
1706:,
1702:,
1698:,
1629:.
1188:.
1126:.
513:.
495:to
232:.
204:)
154:no
1527:t
1512:t
1482:.
1158:K
1093::
1085::
1073::
1065::
1055::
1043::
1033::
1025::
1009::
999::
989::
979::
969::
959::
949::
937::
925::
917::
897::
871::
857::
849::
841::
833::
825::
817::
809::
801::
793::
785::
777::
769::
761::
753::
745::
737::
729::
721::
713::
705::
697::
689::
681::
671::
663::
655::
645::
635::
625::
617::
609::
601::
593::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.