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.