Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Tuner (radio)	Closed	Andrevan (t)	28 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 9 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	23 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 2 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	19 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Crossroads (t)	6 hours
Genocide	New	Bogazicili (t)	8 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 4 hours	Buidhe (t)	1 days,
Khwarazmian Empire	Closed	176.88.165.232 (t)	3 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 1 hours
Egusi	Closed	OmoIyaLeke (t)	3 days, 19 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 16 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 16 hours
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Wolfdog (t)	8 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	2 hours	None	n/a	PromQueenCarrie (t)	2 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 02:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Closed 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. Filed by Saadkhan12345 on 11:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs) Faizan (talk · contribs) TheSawTooth (talk · contribs) Krzyhorse22 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A small dispute regarding information in Infobox and which of the 2 terms, terrorist or militant, would be correct: (Infobox Info) Aghan militants or none CIA Drone strikes added to belligerents or NOT Other Afghan terrorist or militants Explanation Afghan militants or none User:Faizan and User:TheSawTooth suggest that Aghan militants should be added to the infobox. I oppose it and suggest that it should be removed on the ground that Even though its sourced and says militants from Afghanistan attacked but according to intelligence sources it's Pakistani militant groups invoved in border attacks...4th paragraph and 8-10th paragraph and here Afghan militants suggest that the groups are ethnically comprised of Afghans and is an Afghan based group. Militants from Afghanistan suggest they are merely based in Afghanistan (which I think is a much suitable term and the article referenced say From Afghanistan) Cia drones User:Faizan suggest CIA drone strikes should be removed from belligerents in the infobox because there's no reliable source declaring drone strikes as part of the Operation. I think they should be added to the aricle Operation Zarb-e-Azb, since there's a reference here, which shows they are engaged in the conflict against the Taliban. I mean the Pakistan do not "own" the operation and have merely started it and are involved. Also one does not need to sign anything to be part of a conflict. Afghan terrorist or Militants User:TheSawTooth revert to Afghan terrorist instead of militants... I suggest militants is a much more better word to use as terrorist can be relative here and so what is considered terrorist group in one country is not considered by another. Plus the articles reference shows attacks on troops (not civilians) meaning militants would be more preferred term here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Users talkpages and article talk pages How do you think we can help? You can act as a mediator (see and make comments on whose points are more valid and justified). Summary of dispute by Faizan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TheSawTooth Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Krzyhorse22 I agree with and support Saadkhan123435, we should remove the nonsense terms "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" because the sources that are cited in the article do not support these findings. All they mention is militants attacking places inside Pakistan, and majority of these militants are Pakistanis by nationality who are divided into groups such as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Jundallah (Pakistan) and Jamaat-ul-Ahrar. They are supported by smaller number of foreigners (non-Afghans and non-Pakistanis) who belong to groups such as al-Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which are already listed in the infobox of the article. The reason these Pakistanis are fighting against own state is to establish an independent state within Pakistan like that in Syria and Iraq (ISIS), to be self governed under Sharia. Afghans have been busy killing and detaining them on daily bases inside Afghanistan for over 10 years now. There's nothing in the news that even support Afghans backing these groups in any such way, all we read in news is that certain members of Pakistan's military supporting certain militant groups, which is backed by 1,000s of news reports. I quote latest Pakistani news report: "While speaking to BBC Urdu, Sartaj Aziz, Adviser to the Prime Minister on National Security and Foreign Affairs, said that the militants who are not a threat to Pakistan should not be targeted." [1] I quote CBS news in which it claims that U.S. officials wrote in latest Pentagon report: "militants continue to enjoy safe havens in Pakistan, which uses the fighters as a hedge against its loss of influence in Afghanistan and as a counterweight to India's superior military" [2] What the reports try to say is that Pakistan secretly supports certain militant groups to carry out terrorism inside Afghanistan and India but not in Pakistan, and if they do they'll be killed in military operations. NATO, Afghan and Indian officials have been saying this for many years, and is not something deniable. Users Faizan and TheSawTooth may dislike Afghans and Indians, which is very common among Pakistanis, but they need to refrain from extreme thinking and political blame games, especially source falsification as they've done in Operation Zarb-e-Azb. This gives all Pakistani editors, even the honest ones, an ugly image, and besides, it doesn't solve anything.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome User:Saadkhan12345 to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As the filing party it is your obligation to make certain that all parties are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and link to the DRN page. The easiest way to do tist is add: subst:drn-notice|Operation Zarb-e-Azb (surrounded by double brackets {{ }} like these) to their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within three to five days this filing will likely be automatically closed. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Please leave a message here when you have completed the notification of all parties. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Temporary DRN coordinator Notified (all of them). Saadkhan12345 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor; The general practice in Wikipedia is for the Lede and Infobox to be a summary of material already established in the main body of the article. The present info section on "Belligerents" in the Infobox does not seem to overlap with an existing section in the main body of the article. Has either side of the dispute considered adding a short section in the main body of the article to clarify the complex interaction of the belligerents, who they are, and how they are organized, etc. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC) This is a good suggestion/idea Felix. However, I'd like to cap this discussion until all or most of the participants have made opening summaries and indicated they'd like to participate and a DRN volunteer (possibly you) has indicated that they'd like to formerly open the case. Thanks for your patience. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC) DRN coordinator filling in for T-Man while he is away. Good suggestion Felix. I have checked out other operations and seems to be there but not in this one. Comment from uninvolved editor; @Keithbob; Your comment is on target and just to supplement here that after 24 hrs only one side has presented their case (@Krzyhorse22 together with @Saadkhan12345). Since it is the week-end possibly allow 72 hours for response (Tuesday morning), otherwise the matter may be closed as stale without one of the sides responding. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The issue is that the two editors who haven't responded yet are putting "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" in Operation Zarb-e-Azb. However, the sources that they cite no where mention such terms. Have you ever read a Western news report that described Iraqi or Pakistani militants as terrorists? Due to anger and frustration some Pakistani people refer to militants as terrorists. That's the case here but we must write information in Wikipedia articles with WP:NPOV, meaning even if Pakistani government and Pakistani militant groups call each other terrorists we need to use the correct terms instead. Bottom line, there are no Afghan terrorists and the attacks on Pakistani troops are done by foreign fighters, a term Pakistan usually applies to Arabs, Uzbeks, and Chechens. So both "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" must be removed from the article.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice: Participation in DRN is voluntary. Both of the two remaining parties have edited WP since receiving their invitation to participate. If they do not show up in the next 24 hours then I'm going to close this case as failed. For other dispute resolution options see WP:DR and WP:DRR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Hey Kiethbob and FeliRosch...I have notified the other two user and they have edited since thn but do not seem to bother. thanks for helping out here. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, you've done all you can. They say: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him/her drink the water. If the other participants don't arrive soon, there is nothing we can do but close the case. I am sorry. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 25 November 2014 (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.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Antonioptg on 22:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Antonioptg (talk · contribs)
• USchick (talk · contribs)
• Herzen (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Arnoutf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

As you can see on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=636513426&oldid=636512265, the dispute consist in: 1) Deletion of the words "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" in the sentence "According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." 2) Addition of the following text: "On October 28 the Dutch government, in a letter to parliament, stated that only two options are examined by the Public Prosecutor: "An attack from the ground or an attack from the air". The letter also stated that evidence seem to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty". 3) Addition of the following text: "According to a press release on behalf of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Ukraine and Eurojust on August 7 the four countries signed a secret treaty that includes a non-disclosure agreement under which the signatories remain in control of the information that they themselves contribute, so they can veto the disclosure of their own data, and retain the right to keep secret the results of investigations. The press release came just before the Dutch government had to answer parliamentary questions on the issue. Malaysia did not sign the treaty and was the last to join the JIT, being accepted as a full member in late November". With respect to the first point, giving the Russian version of the facts inserting it in the negative definition given by a American newspaper is highly POV. With respect to the second and the third point, the content is based on reliable sources, is relevant and gave rise to parliamentary questions in the Dutch Parliament and official statements by Dutch government. It has been rejected as "conspiracy mongering" or "not relevant"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can give an authoritative opinion so as to induce User Volunteer Marek to review his position allowing users who see the matter from a different perspective to edit the article, considering that, as indicated on "Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus", an Anglo-American point of view of the facts, or a Western one, is contrary to NPOV "especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective".

Summary of dispute by USchick

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

International sources report more broadly about the crash that Western sources. Western sources are considered reliable. Russian sources have been discounted as state owned and therefore, unreliable. There are several discussions in the archived talk pages about Asian and German sources. It's not clear to me why those sources have been discounted as unreliable. The Western version of events is presented in the article, and any other version, even when presented in reliable sources is dismissed as Undue. USchick (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Herzen

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The downing of MH17 is a developing news story which to date has had four phases: (1) initial reports of the downing; (2) reports by news media before any actual official investigations were done, based on unsubstantiated claims made by various governments and international agencies, what had appeared on social media, and on witness accounts, often not backed up by any photographic or video evidence; (3) release of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) preliminary report; (4) the focus of news coverage switching to the criminal investigation led by the Netherlands, with the participation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

The article as it currently stands has two main problems. (I) The bulk of the article consists of material concerning (2). The material from (2) consists essentially of nothing more than hearsay and speculation. It was fine for the article to have covered such material before the results of any investigations were released, but since the DSB report was released, most of the material relating to (2) became undue. Yet this material remains the bulk of the article. (II) There are two official investigations into the MH17 crash: the DSB (technical) investigation, and the JIT criminal investigation. Many reliable sources have reported how the DSB investigation has influenced the criminal investigation. The DSB investigation has led the criminal investigation to narrow the possible scenarios of how MH17 crashed from four to two. (This is point 2 from the Dispute Overview.) Since the downing of MH17 was a criminal act, the focus of this article, when it comes to narratives about what happened, should concern the criminal investigation. Yet getting into and keeping in the article the fact that the criminal investigation has two working theories, not just one, for more than a few days has proven impossible, because some editors brazenly violate Wikipedia's Second Pillar: even though the criminal investigation is considering two theories, some editors believe that they already know the truth, so they feel that any mention of the fact that investigators are considering a second theory must be suppressed. – Herzen (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Guy Macon brought up the "do not talk about other editors" rule. Above, I noted that "some editors" act as if they know the truth. I believe that that comment does not break this rule, since the claim that "some editors" act as if they know the truth is not a comment about particular editors, but rather a reference to the systemic bias that is at the root of this content dispute. If my talk of "some editors" is unacceptable, I will try to rephrase. – Herzen (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Specifics:

1. I'm still considering whether the words "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" should be included in the article or not. But that's about whether this particle source should be used as an example of how a certain view is described or should we rather say something like "Various sources have described the Russian government version as a "Conspiracy Theory"". There's plenty of reliable sources for that: [3], [4], [5], [6] (could throw the word 'bizarre' in there too)

2. The text starting with "Addition of the following text:...". The problem here is that this is cherry-picking from the source in order to push a POV. The source basically says that while two possibilities were examined they are NOT considered equally likely. The "shot down by a rocket" is the one that the report considers the most probable.

3. The secret agreement stuff. Conspiracy mongering nonsense, which originally appeared on the conspiracy website globalresearch, which some of the users here have tried to insist is a reliable source. It's not, it's complete and utter junk. The reliable sources mention it in passing and don't make a conspiracy out of it. WP:UNDUE with a side of WP:POV.

Generals:

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. It is not true as USchick asserts that "International sources report more broadly about the crash that Western sources." This argument is basically a cover for trying to include non-reliable sources in the article. Case in point is the "Asian source" USchick mentions. Consensus was to exclude it, not because it was "Asian" - as USchick tried to pretend and even falsely accused another editor of racism, which almost got them indeffed - but simply because this source was based on the above mentioned globalresearch conspiracy site (seeing a pattern here yet?). Etc.

2. The current article is pretty NPOV and by Wikipedia's standards of current event articles is actually pretty good. It is NPOV and pretty good exactly because unreliable conspiracy sources and junk info have been kept out of the article. This DRN request, the latest in something like two dozen instances of WP:FORUMSHOPPING across multiple boards (AN/I, RSN, AN, 3RR etc. etc.) is exactly a bad-faithed attempt at POVing the article, not vice versa. We don't use junk conspiracy sources, consensus is and has been against including this stuff. Russian government/media view *is* in fact noted in the article, maybe even with too much WP:WEIGHT already.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arnoutf

MH17 page has been plagued by bickering from day 1. The summary of the conflict in my view is that criticism on the Russian position is construed as unrealistic hatred of Russia by those defending Russia, while criticism on Western sources is perceived as vindication of the Russian position by those same editors. In addition several editors demand that the point of view of all Western countries are counted together as a single opinion and contrasted against the Russian opinion. The downing of MH17 resulted in casualties of seven different "western" countries and no Russian casualty; so I really cannot see why the Russian point of view would be more important than even a single of these 7 stricken countries. That is not a pro-Western bias, that is relevance. This is the more interesting as there is no single Russian position (only a broad range of accusations and possible alternatives). This whole thing is further complicated since the powers that may know more have not given full insight into their information - although this would probably involve public disclosure of top secret intelligence information about military and satellite deployment.

These kind of sentiments unsurprisingly underlies the current discussion and in fact most on that talk page; and unless a number of editors start accepting the idea that Russia may have been involved; or other editors accept that Russian sources are worth as much as the combined Western sources this is not going to change.

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interestingly the editor posting this thread here has been blocked earlier this week for edit warring on the MH17 article. That makes the current thread highly suspicious in my view; as it appears the editor wants to get his way through this forum.

Arnoutf (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Saint Aviator

HI. Macon thank you for your time in this dispute resolution. I have been involved and tried to focus on what makes WP an encyclopedia. MH17 is not a good example of an encyclopaedic article. There is a tug of war which has more numbers on the Pro West version side, which seems to be able to attract at key moments, another voice or two. However I believe the so called Pro Russian side is not Pro Russian but instead wants a more neutral, wider view. This stance is more encyclopaedic. I have trouble understanding why a more encyclopaedic NPOV article is being resisted by deleting content that gives the reader a bigger picture. This article is not the MH17 crash investigation and it should not be written in a way that insinuates Russia was involved in shooting down MH17. Thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 23:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Stickee

All the editors who participated in the discussion have not been notified. I have done so now. Stickee (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll likely have my summary up tomorrow. Stickee (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 64.253.142.26

I have monitored this article's talk page regularly and occasionally commented on topics such as is arising in this dispute. I have had the privilege of reviewing the Summaries prepared Volunteer Marek and Arnoutf. I adopt their summaries. Best Regards --64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 01

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A quick procedural note (I am not opening this up for discussion yet -- still waiting on a few editors to weigh in); Some of you may have noticed that I collapsed part of your comment like this:

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Collapsed text

As you can see, I am serious about our "do not talk about other editors" rule. DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. I am allowing more general comments that only touch on user behavior without naming anyone, but I will shut those down as well if they become a problem.

You are free to remove the collapsed material and replace it with something that discusses article content, as you are free to edit your initial comment in any other way.

I am working on reading all the talk page archives and as much of all your user talk page histories as possible, but it is a lot of material, so please give me some time. I had no idea that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 existed until I took this DRN case.

If there are any relevant discussions elsewhere (other pages, arbcom, ANI, etc) that I should read, please drop me a note on my talk page. That would also be an appropriate place to discuss procedural questions. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment from uninvolved editor; @Guy Macon; There appears to be an open RfC on this here [7] on the article's Talk page. The RfC still has a week to go before ending (filed by @USchick). Participants should be informed that normal policy in dispute resolution is that other forums be posted as taking place or otherwise dealt with in order for dispute resolution to continue. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC) User:FelixRosch is correct. Opening for discussion on hold until the RfC closes. I could use the time; I have been reading through the talk page archives and it's a bit of a slog. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Good point Felix and Guy. Hey Guy I've marked this case as 'open' since there is a volunteer here and discussion has begun. We don't have a "on hold" status. If you don't like the open status you can revert me. Also Felix andGuy, keep in mind that the RfC has not been active for 16 days and in a few days it will qualify for a 30 days closing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Update Comment from uninvolved editor; The backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is currently at 57 requests and it looks like no-one has listed this RfC for a closure request there. Comment to @TransporterMan or @Keithbob; Since the RfC is now due for closure, then either of you might consider closing it out since @Guy Macon is the moderator here, and the mediation can restart promptly. Otherwise, backlog at the Administrator's closeout request board may be backlogged for quite a long time. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Good suggestions but I'll leave that matter for User: Guy Macon to deal with as he sees fit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC) I am going to pretend that the RfC has been officially closed and open up the discussion here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 02

I am now opening this up for discussion. I assume that everyone is on board with our "Please discuss article content, never user conduct and do not talk about other editors" policy. I am going to ask that you all try something else that gets us away from the problems with the talk page discussions that resulted in no agreement: try to keep it short, keep it simple, and avoid either walls of text or long rapid back-and-forth discussions. Consider this a polite request, not a hard and fast rule.

Let me throw out an idea as a starting point, keeping in mind that I know less about this topic than anyone else here; how about a series of sections with names like "claims by Russian sources", "claims by Ukrainian sources", "claims by US sources", etc.? (it doesn't have to be spit up that way - maybe "claims by official sources" and "claims by journalistic sources" would be better, or some other way of splitting things up that I haven't though of.) We could just report what they claim without any editorializing or commentary, and if there are sources for it, add a "reaction by X" section where we can put any rebuttals. I am not pushing this as being "the answer" but it might be worth discussing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user; @Guy Macon; It may help for someone to ping all of the involved editors after the unscheduled interim break of several days. Note to @USchick, in answer to your off page question on this dispute, yes, as the originator of the rfc you may self-close using the standard template and indicate that you are deferring to the Dispute resolution noticeboard currently underway here. It is normally up to the editors involved to ping the other participants that this dispute has been restarted. Note to Antonioptg (talk · contribs), USchick (talk · contribs), Herzen (talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), Arnoutf (talk · contribs). Users should reply if they are planning to participate here following the new opening by @Guy Macon as of yesterday. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Re Guy Macon. We have considered something like this. The problem is that creating a "claims by X sources" creates another POV fork altogether.

If you look at the different countries - The US is not directly involved; and Russia (officially) claims not to be directly involved either.

So one neutral point of view would be to list in order of involvement Ukrainian sources (their country), Malaysian sources (their plane), Dutch sources (most casualties and starting place of flight), Australian sources (next in line for casualties), Indonesian sources, UK sources, German, Belgium Philippine New Zealand Canadian sources (all suffered casualties, all are therefore directly involved). And only then Russian and US sources (not directly involved). However that would blow up such sections out of all proportion.

Also you second suggestion, to separately list official responses and journalistic responses is not very easy. There are in fact very few official responses. For journalistic responses we should only allow reliable outlets. For example Mad (magazine) should not be used as a reliable source. In addition, a reliable media outlet should be free to gather and report news. This opens up another can of worms as there are serious doubts about the current freedom of the press in Russia. For that reason many editors are very hesitant to accept any major Russian source as reliable. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support listing opinions in order of involvement, and uninvolved countries wouldn't necessarily have an opinion. USchick (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This dwelling on "serious doubts about the current freedom of the press in Russia" is extremely counterproductive. There are no serious doubts about that, and the reason that "many editors" are "very hesitant to accept any major Russian source as reliable" is not that there are "serious doubts", but that many editors are victims of Western anti-Russian propaganda (as the Ukraine-related article make all too clear), the ultimate origin of which is the US State Department. That "many editors" think that there is no free press in Russia is an indication that the Anglophone press is less pluralistic than the Russian press, with the Western press following an obsessive anti-Russian line from which it never deviates. The Washington Post put out a hit piece on the Russian press last September: In prosecuting his widening war in Ukraine, [Putin] has also resurrected the tyranny of the Big Lie, using state-controlled media to twist the truth so grotesquely that most Russians are in the dark — or profoundly misinformed — about events in their neighbor to the west. The day after this rant was published, a Russian Web site which publishes translations of articles from the Western press posted this WaPo editorial in Russian. So it would seem that it is Westerners who are in the dark, not Russians. This piece by a Finnish financial consultant explains how members of the Russian opposition press like to claim that they are oppressed by the government, without any basis for those claims. And you just have to look through Novaya Gazeta to see that anti-Kremlin points of view can be freely published. There is a story insinuating that rebels shelled OSCE observers, another one about how a Russian mercenary was killed in Ukraine, a story about how separatists are "provoking" Ukraine, which is "looking for new reasons not to wage war", and a story about a "Russian march of nationalists". I consider all these stories to be crude anti-Russian propaganda, and yet they get published in the Russian press. It is Ukraine that doesn't have a free press anymore. Kiev recently created a ministry of information, newspeak for ministry of propaganda. Until this move by Kiev, I was not aware of any European country having a ministry of propaganda since Nazi Germany fell. – Herzen (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Quote: "This dwelling on "serious doubts about the current freedom of the press in Russia" is extremely counterproductive. There are no serious doubts about that, and the reason that "many editors" are "very hesitant to accept any major Russian source as reliable" is not that there are "serious doubts", but that many editors are victims of Western anti-Russian propaganda (as the Ukraine-related article make all too clear), the ultimate origin of which is the US State Department. " - there is basically no sensible way that one can respond to claims like these. Everyone who thinks that freedom of press in Russia is restricted is brainwashed by the US State Department (never mind all the journalist who've been harassed or murdered, never mind all the independent outlets that have been shut down or taken over, never mind that multiple reliable sources regard state run media outlets as disinformation platforms, never mind that no serious scholar or academic in the area takes these outlets seriously). Everyone who evaluates sources according to the criteria enumarated out in WP:RS is a "victim of Western anti-Russian propaganda". Etc. It is simply impossible to engage in productive discussion - or "dispute resolution" - with someone who sincerely believes that anyone who disagrees with them is a victim/part of some big nefarious conspiracy, facts be damned. I am sorry. I am NOT wasting my time on this circus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) This piece by a Finnish financial consultant... - Finnish financial consultant my butt. I mean, yes, he may be that, among other things (likes to self publish books) but he's basically an individual involved in extremist fringe politics (he even got kicked out of one of the fringe parties!) with very close ties to the Kremlin (he runs a Russian firm). I mean, you can just *read* that piece and see that it's idiotic crap. Quote: "We read that Leonid Bershidsky — the Russian founding editor of Vedomosti – laments that the proposed law "kills off my life's work." He sounds like an arrested serial killer wailing about all those victims he will never have the chance to kill." So somebody who complains about lack of press freedom in Russia is a "serial killer". Nice. Why are we being asked to take this seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone here care to self-edit their comments above before I step in and start collapsing material that talks about other editors?

Regarding whether Russian sources are considered reliable, I already raised that question in anticipation of this discussion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Russian Media. Here is a quote from that discussion that explains how we are going to handle this:

"It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories, and a final decision has not been reached. The thing we normally do in such a case is to write the most representative and prominent versions of each story, and who supports each. If, for example, all the major sources supporting story A are from one country, we should make that clear."

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Using major sources per country might solve part of the problem (if we can decide what the major sources are). But still it would place Russian responses only at place 12 as there are eleven countries more directly involved. We would need some effort to reduce that; without losing relevant points of view.

Suggestions to lump all non Russian reponses together as Western is problematic as a suggestion as that would remove the differences in the cautious approach of the Dutch, the even more cautious French reponse versus the fairly aggressive Australian and US responses. The only nuetral argument to lump these together in my view would be the old cold war iron curtain line. However, from this it would automatcially follow we should also lump Polish, Baltic, Ukrainian and Russian responses together. I think you all agree that would be weird in this case. Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the reliable sources discussion of Russian sources, Russian sources and hence Russian responses have nothing to do with this dispute. There are two main points of contention in this dispute, as indicated by the person who started this issue in DRN. (1) The criminal investigation headed by the Dutch has two working theories: either MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile, or it was shot down by a fighter jet. The dispute here is that some editors do not want the article to note that the criminal investigation is considering the second theory. (2) The initial members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) signed a secret agreement which gave each member the power to veto what the report they produce discloses. There is a serious conflict of interest issue here, since Ukraine is a member of the JIT, and yet Ukraine is one of the two suspects for who downed MH17 (the other one being the rebels). Some editors want Wikipedia to suppress mention of this clear conflict of interest and potential compromise and politicization of the investigation, because mention of the secret agreement is allegedly undue. – Herzen (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As the original post also states - The "seem to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty" means that while the Dutch investigation does not rule out the alternative, it also does not consider it equally likely. This difference is important to the debate; we should not claim that both theories are considered equally likely (as above post implies).

Also in that secret agreement they agreed to share intelligence information. There is nothing special about governments wanting to ensure their intelligence information will not be made public. It is indeed somewhat awkward that Ukraine is one of those as they may have something to hide. On the other hand without the Ukrainian agreement access to most relevant information would be impossible. All in all this whole agreement is a minor footnote in the investigation and the reporting on it so far and should not receive undue attention. Arnoutf (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

without the Ukrainian agreement access to most relevant information would be impossible.

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is a ridiculous statement. The Ukrainian government doesn't even bother to pretend now that it is anything other than a puppet of the US. The US flag now flies over the SBU building. Ukraine has no information that the US does not also have. And as for "relevant information", the most relevant information when it comes to a plane crash is the plane wreckage, and the Dutch government is on the record that the reason they let weeks pass by without inspecting the plane wreckage was that because Holland is a NATO country, it cannot have any contact with the rebels. (Sorry I am not giving a link for this. This is another aspect of the story that I tried to get into the article, but was thrown down the memory hole.) – Herzen (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Herzen, this is suppose to be a dispute resolution process, not a FORUM (and yes, give link or it didn't happen).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Access to Ukrainian air traffic control data, and access to the area to recover parts of the wreck seem fairly relevant to me. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? Has Ukraine released its air traffic control data to the public? Not that I know of. Why not? What has Ukraine got to hide? As for getting to the crash site, Malaysians had no difficulty with that. That is because they are not a NATO country, so they were willing to talk to the rebels. – Herzen (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has Ukraine released its air traffic control data to the public? Not that I know of. Why not? What has Ukraine got to hide? - this is just more conspiracy crap. This is a nonsense claim that appears on all sort of wacky, fringe, troll-ish website. But in fact this data has been released - which is how we are able to cover it in the article already, see? For example [8] Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories". No, this is not the case. Aside of numerous details, a vast majority of reliable sources claim that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists from their territory using a Buk surface-to-air missile. That is what article currently tells. The ungoing and currently incomplete investigation is just a minor detail. We simply go with sources. So, this page is actually in a satisfactory shape (unlike many other WP pages). The only reason for having this discussion are personal beliefs by some participants [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Russian sources are reliable is a distraction in my opinion. Whenever Russian sources report something about this crash, other reliable sources pick up the story. I suggest we start with the facts and see what kind of article we come up with. There was a plane and it crashed. There's an investigation. These are facts. Then after the facts are in place, we can discuss opinions. USchick (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We cover what reliable sources say. "Opinions" of the non-fringe, non-conspiracy, kind are covered in reliable sources. If you try had enough you can reduce anything to "an opinion". This is just a bs rhetorical trick aimed at excluding "facts", which some users JUSTDONTLIKE by re-labeling them as "opinions".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we try it? Does anyone else have an objection to starting with facts? USchick (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a loaded question. All basic facts are already described in the page. In addition, I believe the minority views are already described in this section with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really not a loaded question. In the article, the facts are buried in all kinds of opinions. I propose we look at facts only, and then decide if anything is missing. USchick (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about removing or downplaying majority views on the grounds "they are not facts", then no, that would go against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I suggest we start with the facts to serve as an outline. Then decide if anything is missing. If at that point, we determine that majority views are missing, let's include them. USchick (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the heart of the problem we are discussing. Some editors, myself included, share concerns about the Russian media in general, and the Russian reporting on MH17 in particular. Other editors would like to see equal weight be given to "Russian" and "Western" sources. We can not do both. Either we give what some would view as "undue weight" to unreliable Russian sources, or, as others would view it we engage in "Western" POV. There are legitimate reasons to be critical of Russian sources concerning MH17. Most notably the issue of the "satellite photo" which alleged to show a Ukrainian fighter shooting down MH17 was almost instantly debunked. The engineer used as a source gave an interview to Buzzfeed denying what had been reported and criticizing Russian reporters. This is just one example, but it is certainly illustrative of the larger credibility problem facing Russian reporting on this issue. I think the article provides a pretty good balance as is. Perhaps it would be most helpful if we turned the discussion towards the specific disputes (1-3) that have been raised by Antonioptg.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is: some people want to change the article and some people don't. USchick (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The dispute overview prepared by Antonioptg outlines three specific issues. Is there any interest in working one by one through these topics?--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Drop-in Comment from Interwiki Projects; The linked interwiki pages seem to be aware of this issue and have simply listed them a separate versions of the events (up to five or six different versions and enumerated them). For example, the Russian version of wikipedia lists the following versions and leaves it for readers to decide which one they are most comfortable with (in the case of the Russian page, it is listed as section five):

5 Versions

5.1 Version of the involvement of the rebels

5.2 Version of the involvement of Russian military

5.3 Version of the involvement of Ukrainian military

5.4 Information in the media about the insurgents downed AN-26

5.5 Data released by the Russian security agencies

5.6 Data released by the US secret services

This is one variation on an alternate approach to coverage from Interwiki Wikiprojects. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support this approach (as an alternate approach to my suggestion above for looking at facts.). USchick (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am to some extent ok with 5.1 -- 5.3 but that is implicitly already there. Problematic is however that this suggests that there are three more or less equally likely theories. However section 5.4 the AN-26 issue is somewhat problematic. Sections 5.5 and 5.6 are even more problematic as these services release whatever they want. Also this structure excludes reports from e.g. the German secret service (who actually released a report in contrast to US and Russian services).

I am not sure Russian Wikipedia is a very good example, as there is evidence that Russian governmental agencies have actively involved themselves in editing that page. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• No, this version from ruwiki goes against WP:NPOV because it provides equal weight to majority view and conspiracy theories. And, yes, although ruwiki is a great source on cultural issues, articles on hot political subjects (such as that one) are frequently created there by people with a "conflict of interest". My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:WEIGHT, which is, of course points to a particular section of WP:NPOV. I encourage everyone involved to re-read it even if you think you know it backwards and forwards. Those are the basic rules that we as Wikipedia editors are required to follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think more relevant policy is WP:Consensus. Antonioptg insists to include three pieces of text (his diff in question) without having WP:Consensus. The lack of consensus is obvious from discussions on article talk page and above on this page. Let's simply not include any disputable text without having consensus, because that is what our official guidelines require. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not going to help. There has been considerable debate on the article talk page, whether the Russian position is a minority view compared to the overwhelming number of views of other countries, or whether the Russian position should be considered at comparable footing with some kind of unitary "Western block"; in which case the Russian position obviously would present much heavier weight. We have not even come close to solving that, and much of the WP:WEIGHT discussion have been bogged down by differences in that position. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to ask you to stop discussing why you think DRN will not work. While the comments are in good faith and genuinely helpful, they are straying too close to talking about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 03

Folks, you are doing the exact same things that completely failed to resolve these issues when you did them on the article talk page. I asked you all to not talk about other editors. Some payed attention, but others ignored me. I asked that if someone else started talking about other editors that you not respond and leave it to me to handle. Again, some were fine with that but others decided that the rules don't apply to them. I politely requested that we keep it short and keep it short, keep it simple, and avoid either walls of text or long rapid back-and-forth discussions. Guess what happened?

I want each of you to ask yourself, Do I want to resolve this content dispute or do I want to keep doing what didn't work before and sabotage the DRN process? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a party to this dispute, but you shan't solve it through discussion. The only way to solve it is through administrative action, which is why I suggested ArbCom a while ago. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom does not rule on article content disputes. DRN does not discuss user conduct issues. There may very well be a two-stage solution, where DRN resolves or fails to resolve the content dispute and then ANI or Abcom addresses any user conduct issues, but in the meantime I am going to do my best to resolve the content dispute. I am not convinced that it is unsolvable. nobody has ever tried resolving the content dispute in an environment where discussing user conduct is strictly prohibited, so we have no idea whether doing that will work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article has been to AN/I numerous times, with no result. This is not really a content dispute, which is why you won't be able to solve the problem. This is a matter of people on both sides of this "dispute" being WP:POINTy. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

May I humbly suggest that we work item by item through the list (1-3) that has been outlined in the dispute overview? The larger discussion of sources does not appear to be helping resolve these issues. Perhaps if we discuss the specific changes that were objected to, we may be able to make progress.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed. This can be easily resolved per policies. Antonioptg insists to include three pieces of text (his diff in question) without having WP:Consensus. The lack of consensus is obvious from discussions on article talk page and above on this page. Let's not include any disputable text without having consensus, because that is what our official guidelines require. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That may actually be useful to keep on topic. Although I have little hope this will solve future issues on the article. I hope I capture the 3 points fairly below

1) The prhase "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" in the sentence "According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane."

2) Addition of the following phrase: "On October 28 the Dutch government, in a letter to parliament, stated that only two options are examined by the Public Prosecutor: "An attack from the ground or an attack from the air". While the statement from the same source is omitted: "evidence seems to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty".

3) Addition of the following text: "According to a press release on behalf of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Ukraine and Eurojust on August 7 the four countries signed a secret treaty that includes a non-disclosure agreement under which the signatories remain in control of the information that they themselves contribute, so they can veto the disclosure of their own data, and retain the right to keep secret the results of investigations. The press release came just before the Dutch government had to answer parliamentary questions on the issue. Malaysia did not sign the treaty and was the last to join the JIT, being accepted as a full member in late November".

I would be happy to discuss these in separate subsections. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be a start, and I would be willing to participate. But unless we resolve the core issues, we'll be doing this for every phrase in the article. USchick (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, and maybe not. I have seen that happen in DRN cases, but I have also seen one or maybe two specific phrases be resolved and everybody applied that same criteria throughout the article. I have also seen attempts to deal with core issues devolve into a catfight. In my opinion, we should try resolving one or two specific phrases and see where it goes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The core issue is that the US has started a fourth-generation war against Russia, but some editors are in denial about that. It is well known that Britain and France produced absurd anti-German propaganda during the lead-up to World War I: We are witnesses today to the same kind of propagandistic lies with regard to Russia that caused World War 1. In The Genesis Of The World War, Harry Elmer Barnes quotes the French chief editor of a French account of the organization of propaganda in France during World War 1. The French built a massive building called La Maison de la Presse. In this building images of people were created with hands cut off, tongues torn out, eyes gouged out, and skulls crushed with brains laid bare. These images were then photographed and “sent as unassailable evidence of German atrocities to all parts of the globe, where they did not fail to produce the desired effect.” … This vicious propaganda against Germany meant that Germany could be blamed for the war … Germany being deliriously accused of savage atrocities in the lead-up to WW I is exactly equivalent to Russia being accused of the downing of MH17. Yet some editors are too trapped in their POV to see that they are prevented from grasping reality by their cultural bias. I really don't see how a DRN discussion can solve this problem. Thus I think we should content ourselves with achieving a resolution on the three points. Arnoutf mentioned. – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) And yet another comment which perfectly exemplifies the reason why discussion has been completely fruitless. "US has started a war against Russia". "Some editors are in denial about that". An equivalent of Goodwin's Law violation. Irrelevant crap about some French building from WWI ?!?!! Emotional rhetoric about hands being cut off and tongues torn out. And then a completely nonsensical analogy. Either you want to discuss this seriously or you don't. Comments like these pretty much establish that you don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: Thank you for helping to bring the discussion back on track. Do you have any objections to the inclusion of (2) and (3)? And are you willing to deny that (1) is POV-pushing, unencylopedic and SYNTH? – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So let's look at "According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." WP:WEIGHT says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added). do we need the added "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" language in the middle of that? Should it not be in a statement about what NYM says instead? It looks a lot like editorializing to me, but of course my opinion doesn't matter -- only the consensus of the editors working on the page matters. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we focus on the crash? There are other articles about the warfare between Russia and Ukraine. If the US started a war with Russia, that's a separate article. USchick (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that adding the NY Magazine remark is editorializing. Now let's see if we can an agreement on Arnoutf's points (2) and (3). – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would give proper weight to have the article read "According to the Russian military, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." -- and then follow with a sentence saying something like "[NYM and/or name other sources] have questioned the evidence supporting these assertions OR criticized the statements of the military because...". I welcome suggestions to fine tune the second sentence.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

[10], [11], [12], [13] -- These sources (or one of them) could potentially be used to illustrate that there has been criticism of the version provided by the Russian military, and may allow us to give proper weight.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Still too much weight through juxtaposition, in my opinion. I think anything from NYM should be in a section that neutrally reports claims that it was a Buk missile fired by Donbass separatists, and we should have a section that neutrally reports claims that it was a Ukrainian SAM or fighter plane. I don't see any need to mix the two or insert any refutation into either. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The question of undue weight does come into play, as there is overwhelming majority opinion that the first claim (BUK) is vastly more likely. A whole section on each theory would therefore in my view be problematic. If we can manage to condense these sections into a one or a few sentences it may work though. A line could be "The Russian military suggest MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." (NB Russia makes no claims in formal statements that this is the case, so we should probable not use "according to Russia this is the case"). Arnoutf (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be problematic; I don't think it should happen at all. Separate sections are quite similar to pro and con lists, and almost always lead to undue weight appearing. Stickee (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also concerned this would lead to False balance between Russian views and those held by media organizations outside of Russia. Time, CNN, The New Republic, NYM and others have looked at the evidence provided in Russian media and reported the Russian claims as Propaganda or Conspiracy theories. In these circumstances, I believe it would be undue to give equal prominence to the Ukrainian SAM/ fighter plane theories.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also see these international sources of criticism: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation[14], the South China Morning Post[15], The Sydney Morning Herald[16], the Guardian[17], the Toronto Star[18], and the National Post[19]. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. According to moderator, "It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories". No. Vast majority of reliable sources claim that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists from their territory using a Buk surface-to-air missile. That is what article currently tells. We simply go with majority view. On on the other hand, version of ruwiki (see comment above) gives equal weight to the majority view and conspiracy theories. Actually, this is a "moderate version" of the events propagated on Russian TV: everything is possible and everyone is lying. This is not the case according to RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the "moderator" (DRN volunteer, actually) saying that. I quoted the discussion at the neutral sources noticeboard. And the view that the Ukrainians shot down the plane really is prominent. You are confusing whether something is prominent with whether there is evidence for it being true. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sure. The view that the Ukrainians shot down the plane should be mentioned in the article, and it has been mentioned several times - in introduction and in this section. I simply do not see any serious problems with article content, which would warrant this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring that there is now a criminal investigation underway. What the "vast majority of reliabxle sources claim" is based on nothing more than what amounts to gossip, with nothing that can be called evidence involved at all. Thus it does not matter how many "reliable sources" propound the theory which you consider to be the one and only truth: all of that material is junk and has no place in an encyclopedia. Here is what the Dutch chief prosecutor has to say about this:

If you read the newspapers, though, they suggest it has always been obvious what happened to the airplane and who is responsible. But if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one.

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I put that quotation into the article, but unsurprisingly, it was taken out, because it makes clear that the MH17 article as it currently stands is a travesty. This is because the editors who act as if they own the article are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to smear the rebels and Russia as being guilty of downing MH17, so that they in effect act as judge and jury – instead of waiting for the criminal investigation to take its course – gaming the system with the specious claim that all they are doing is following reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM again. Also discussing editors again. Also making serious discussion impossible. Again. Outright explicit rejection of Wikipedia's policy on reliable source, unintentionally and ironically, combined with unfounded bad faithed accusations that it's "the others" who are not adhering to policy. Again. Admission that reliable sources say one thing, then dismissal of reliable sources as "gossip", then a turn around and a claim that others are not following reliable sources. This is simply incoherent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The interview with Fred Westerbeke, chief investigator with the Dutch National Prosecutors' Office, further illustrates the risk of False balance. He also states:

Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently.

Obviously, a criminal investigation must consider all possibilities, but that does not mean they are treated with equal weight.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. "shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario" + "a criminal investigation must consider all possibilities" is being turned into "my favorite conspiracy deserves same weight as the most likely/reliable sources scenario or we have to remove everything but the most basic facts (a plane went down)". You want to talk WP:GAME, WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:BADFAITH? That's the essence of it right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Did the two of you even bother to look at the diff that is linked to at the top of this DSN case? It contains the following sentcence:

The letter also stated that evidence seem to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty.

("Rocket" here clearly means "surface to air missile", since air to air missiles are never called rockets.) Nobody has ever proposed that the fact that prosecutors are looking at two theories should be mentioned without also mentioning that prosecutors think that one theory is more likely to to be true than the other. So you are just wasting people's time with a straw man. – Herzen (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I believe we are still discussing the first issue: whether it is necessary to qualify the sentence "According to the Russian military, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." I will reserve my comments about the second and third issues for later.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Qualify the sentence how? Dutch prosecutors speak in terms of whether the plane was shot down by a surface to air missile or by a fighter jet, not in terms of whether it was shot down by pro-Russian rebels or the Ukrainian military. Framing the matter in the latter terms amounts to OR, as far as I can tell. – Herzen (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is your reply to Westerbeke's point that what is said in social media does not constitute evidence? If it's not evidence, why should Wikipedia care about such gossip? And note that removing all the gossip is not the subject of this content dispute. The main subject of this content dispute is mentioning that prosecutors are considering a second theory. Nobody has proposed giving the second theory equal weight in the article. You just accuse me of proposing that because you don't appear to have a leg to stand on anymore, when it comes to suppressing any mention of the second theory as something that is taken seriously by Dutch prosecutors, as opposed to being just a crazy Russian conspiracy theory. – Herzen (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been very careful here not to accuse you of anything. My concerns regarding the proper weight to place on that sentence and others arises from the reporting in Time, CNN, New Republic, NYM, CBC, South China Morning Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Guardian, Toronto Star, and National Post (as noted above). I don't think these articles can be ignored. I think Westerbeke's opinion further supports a qualification. That he says internet reports and newspaper articles are not evidence in a criminal trial, does not mean that we do not rely on them here when they amount to reliable sources. In terms of the exact words required to qualify the sentence, as noted above, I am open to suggestions.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a qualification like "Dutch investigators are also looking at the theory that has been put forward by the Russian government, that MH17 was downed by a fighter jet using a canon and/or an air to air missile." (That sentence is not meant to be a concrete proposal.) My main concern here is that the article not dismiss this second posibility as a crazy Russian conspiracy theory. That's what this dispute has basically been about since the Dutch Safety Board preliminary report came out. Some editors want the article to treat this second theory as crazy, a "conspiracy theory", and something that no one but Russians takes seriously, whereas neither of the two ongoing investigations support such a marginalization of the second theory. – Herzen (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we are back to the heart of the issue. I agree that there should be mention of the fighter jet theory. It is notable. At the same time, the theory does appear to warrant marginalization. At the end of the day, the information we have now suggests that MH17 was shot down by rebels equipped with a Russian Buk missile launcher. The vast majority of reliable sources support this version of events (based on official statements, witnesses at the site of the crash, admissions/inconsistencies in the events told by rebel leaders, and witnesses, photographs and video of the alleged launcher being moved back into Russia, etc). The fact that the investigations are ongoing does not negate the conclusions reached by the reliable sources. Numerous reliable sources have reported critically on the "Russian" versions or suggestions that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet. Westerbeke's own statement casts doubt on the fighter jet theory. If the Dutch investigations (or either of them) determine that the Ukrainian fighter jet theory is a real likelihood, we will certainly have to change the article. But based on the information (as expressed in reliable sources) MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile launcher from territory held by the rebels. Any suggestion to the contrary needs to be qualified with criticism of that position as expressed in the articles noted above, and in particular [20] and [21].--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 04

---

WARNING: ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO TALK ABOUT OTHER EDITORS WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THIS DRN DISCUSSION SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO CHOOSE TO OBEY THE RULES CAN TRY TO RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE WITHOUT YOUR INTERFERENCE. THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER WARNINGS.

---

Those who reply to comments about other editors will be warned, and if the behavior persists, will be asked to leave as well.

A reminder; participation in DRN is strictly voluntary, and there will be no bad consequences from either deciding to leave because you don't like our rules or being asked to leave. Furthermore, DRN has zero authority, and nothing decided here is binding. Our goal is to get all of you to come to an agreement that everyone can live with. We do, however, have rules for participating that we have found to be effective, and anyone who chooses to participate must follow those rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is pretty bad when the "mediator" is writing in all caps. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer. Not "mediator". I don't want to step on the toes of the fine folks of the Wikipedia Mediation Committee. As for the all caps, certain editors are not listening, and the Wikimedia Foundation no longer lets me travel to where they live and wake them up with a bullhorn at three in the morning. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I proposed that we move all claims of responsibility into sections using this basic structure:

• Section with claims that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Buk surface-to-air missile.

• Subsection with criticism of the above claims.

• Section with claims that say the plane was shot down by Ukraine using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.

• Subsection with criticism of the above claims.

I think each section should neutrally report what the sources say with no inserted editorializing. I don't think we have to editorialize or do anything special to "marginalize" either POV. I think that the quality of the sources in each section will speak for themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I find that to be a reasonable solution. Other Wikipedias, the German one for example, do something similar. Finding sources for the two criticism sections may take a bit of work, but it would be worth it, since having criticism sections is a standard way of bringing about NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such organization of page would put on equal footing claims that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists and claims that the plane was shot down by Ukraine. However, the latter is either a conspiracy theory or a small minority view - per vast majority of RS. This proposal goes against WP:NPOV which is not negotiable per policy. (I comment here as someone who did not edit this page a lot and only occasionally took part in discussions, but familiar with the subject) My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with My very best wishes here. Almost all of the theories about Ukraine shooting down the plane are presented as speculation ("is it a coincedence some people reported a fighter plane close to MH17") rather than an outright claim. So if we keep it to claims of people with at least some relevant authority the section is probably ending up as good as empty. Arnoutf (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Theories about the rebels shooting down the plane with Russia's help are no less speculative and conspiracy theories than the theory that Kiev shot the plane down. And more evidence has actually been made public for the case that Kiev shot the plane down, since the Russian military made public some aerial photographs showing Buk systems deployed on Kiev-controlled territory and snapshots of civilian radar, and a more detailed image from Russian civilian radar was subsequently released. The US/NATO in contrast has made absolutely no hard evidence public.

You are also studiously ignoring a point I have made before: that the US is currently involved in an intense information war with Russia. Just because English Wikipedia uses the predominant language of the United States does not mean that English Wikipedia should take sides in this information war, and not following Guy Macon's proposal for how this article can attain a semblance of NPOV would involve Wikipedia's taking sides, something an encyclopedia should not do. Today, some editors are saying that "everybody knows" that the rebels shot down MH17; in 1914, similar editors would have claimed that everybody knows that German soldiers cut the hands off babies and the breasts off nuns. Why is it so hard for some Wikipedia editors to see that the West is now being subjected to anti-Russian propaganda in exactly the same way as the British and French were subjected to anti-German propaganda in the lead up to World War I? Are the educational systems in Western countries so broken down that their graduates lack any sense of historical perspective? – Herzen (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your use of "some Wikipedia editors" combined with "are the educational systems in Western countries so broken down that their graduates lack any sense of historical perspective" is coming dangerously close to talking about other editors. I strongly suggest that you and everyone else stick to content, sources, and policies, and avoid anything that could be interpreted as implying that other editors are poorly educated.

And no, I do not need any comments from other editors at this point. If you think someone is talking about other editors, either ignore it or drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Theories about the rebels shooting down the plane with Russia's help are no less speculative and conspiracy theories" - No, not according to reliable sources they aren't.

" more evidence has actually been made public for the case that Kiev shot the plane down" - No, not according to reliable sources it hasn't.

" the Russian military made public some aerial photographs showing Buk systems deployed on Kiev-controlled territory" - No, what they "made public" is some blurry satellite photos with some little tiny indiscernible black dots, which they then claimed were Ukrainian BUKs. While at the same time pushing the completely contradictory theory that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian jet. Hence, reliable sources reported this as something the Russian government claimed. Why not go ahead and claim that "the Russian media made public some aerial photographs showing a Ukrainian jet shooting down the airliner"? Oh yeah... that's right.

And I strongly object to my comments being hatter or removed when Herzen is using hyperbolic and emotional language about cutting hands of babies and breasts of nuns and insulting other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Drop-in Comment from Interwiki Projects (Dutch version); In addition to the Russian wikipage posted from yesterday above, I translated the Dutch page section which deals with the Reactions material in much more detail than the English page. It appears that off-setting the material to the Reactions section simplifies the presentation of material which needs to appear in the Different Versions section covering for the incident:

5 Background

6 Blame

6.1 Theories

7 Reactions to human losses

7.1 Netherlands

7.1.1 Government

7.1.2 Custom events

7.1.3 Day of national mourning

7.1.4 National Memorial

7.2 Australia

7.3 Malaysia

7.4 Ukraine

7.5 Malaysia Airlines

7.6 International

For the Dutch page who suffered the most casualties, the reaction section is covered in four sections by comparison to the others. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the Dutch page really not cover the reaction by Russia, or is that in another section? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon; The Dutch page does have a shorter section on various Opinions regarding the reconstruction of the incident including Russia's view (which it seems to consider as still in process), though its most developed section is on the Reactions to human loss (which it seems to consider as having historically taken place). FelixRosch (TALK) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that one side is a (significant) minority view. The article says "According to the poll conducted by the Levada Center between 18 and 24 July 80% of Russians surveyed believed that the crash of MH17 was caused by the Ukrainian military. Only 3% of respondents to the poll blamed the disaster on pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine" and the Washington Post says "Almost no one in Russia is buying the story that the rest of the world accepts". Read WP:WEIGHT again. The standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is not evidence. it is prominence. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. Thank you. And without any evidence, it's all speculation anyway. USchick (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• No, according to WP:NPOV, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. The majority and minority views are defined exclusively by the sources, not by public opinion polls. One could just as easily appeal to public opinion in the Soviet Union. In addition, the Levada Center has been frequently accused of producing fake results. Now, according to WP:NPOV, the claims that the plane was shot down by Ukraine should be also represented. And they are indeed represented in a separate section. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The key here is understanding the different standards we use here on Wikipedia for different types of information. If someone wanted to, say, put information into an article saying that Wikipedia user USchick is the current king of France, that would require evidence that you actually are the current king of France. If, however, they tried to put information into an article saying that Wikipedia user USchick claims to be the current king of France, you saying that you are the current king of France is all the evidence we need. That alone is not enough to justify inclusion, though; one would also have to show that the claim is notable. If, for example, multiple reliable sources reported your claim -- even if every one refuted it -- that would be enough for us to include it in a Wikipedia article, along with reactions to the claim. If the only source is me using it here as a silly example, then it would not be allowed in an article. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that nobody contests that the majority of the Russians believes in the Russian view. The article is not about views on MH17 within the Russian population. For the article it is the official view of a country that matters in my opinion. That view remains the view of a single country. So the question is whether a single country's opinion is a significant minority opinion in the light of the vast majority of other countries reporting on this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear. The government of Russia making a claim is more than enough to establish that the claim is notable and prominent. Every reliable source that discusses the Russian claim -- even if only to refute it -- adds to the claim's notability and prominence, just as any reliable source that discusses the claim that USchick is the current king of France (even sources that point out that France no longer has a monarchy) would add to the claim's notability and prominence. That's how Wikipedia works. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. The problem remains however that the government of Russia has not made a claim. Several Russian officials have speculated about possible alternative explanations and raised doubts but none of these seem to have been backed by governmental support.Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "The Russian Ministry of Defense has maintained that American claims of separatist responsibility were 'unfounded', and said that the American intelligence agencies have not released any of the data on which they based their conclusions.[22] According to the Russian military [...] MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.[23][24]". Please note that that last WSJ ref is titled "Russia Presents Its Account of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash", not "Several Russian officials have speculated about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So, this is already said in the article. Fine. What else do you possibly want? Give it the same weight as the opposite theory supported by nearly all other sources? My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the WSJ article is from 21 July, 3 days after the crash when much less was known. That specific claim has to my knowledge not been officially supported after that time. These are all arguments we have had over and over again on the talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Mr Macon's proposed approach. Providing separate sections for separate theories is a recipe for WP:GEVAL and WP:BALASPS. One needs to give adequate weight to each theory, in line with what reliable sources say on the subject. One cannot create multiple concurrent narratives, but maintain the weight that reliable sources give to each of them. However, it must be acknowledged that all of these are theories, and not necessarily reality. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with RGloucester. Providing seperate sections for separate theories, including ones which are not taken seriously by reliable sources, is NOT how we write encyclopedia articles. It's also a blueprint for a crappy article and one which serves as a continual POV-magnet ("you put these other wacky theories in, therefore you must include my favorite crazy theory in!"). I'd like to point out that DNR cannot override Wikipedia policies, or guidelines, and especially not pillars. We rely on reliable sources. That's it. We don't bend that basic, fundamental pillar of an encyclopedia to placate the whims of disaffected users.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My addendum to the Netherlands translation above left out the "Theory" section which is maintained there which is not present in many other of the Interwiki versions, possibly as an oversight. I have added the missing section by section number in the Netherlands outline above. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there is no evidence that I am not the king of France. According to Obama, Putin is "directly responsible" for safety in Ukraine [25]. And this guy claims Obama is "Indirectly Responsible" for the crash [26] Let me know when you decide to go with facts. When you have wild accusations flying around, who can argue with facts??? USchick (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

However different, both opinion pieces agree on one thing: the plane was indeed shot down either by the rebels or by Russian military who guided the Buk, because that is what vast majority of publications tell. According to Obama, "Vladimir Putin, should be held "directly responsible" for ensuring the site of the Malaysian aircraft downed in eastern Ukraine is made accessible to international investigators" [because he controls the rebels]. According to people who criticize Obama, "The blood on Vladimir Putin’s hands was poured by Barack Obama, who is indirectly responsible, accountable and no different than Neville Chamberlain’s weakness in the face of the 20th Century maniacal dictator Adolf Hitler". This is just another clear indication what is the majority view on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

One can't really draw conclusions about what "the majority view on this subject" is based on what appears in the Western media. A recent poll found that 63% of Germans have "little or no trust" in the coverage by German media of the Ukraine. This is compared to 53% for the coverage of the Islamic State and 40% for coverage about the recent strike of German locomotive drivers. When respondents who said that they do not trust German media when it comes to Ukraine were asked why they have mistrust, 31% gave the reason as "coverage is one-sided/not objective", 18% said that "the coverage does not correspond to reality", and 9% said "the coverage is imprecise/not sufficiently comprehensive". (Download the PDF file to see reasons that fewer people gave.) Thus, most Germans understand that when it comes to coverage of events in Ukraine, German media are particularly untrustworthy. Since the coverage by German media does not differ from coverage by Anglophone media (if anything, German media let more objective reporting trickle through occasionally), one can conclude from that that most Germans find Western coverage as a whole of the Ukraine crisis to be unreliable. Why a majority of Germans can understand this, while some editors of English Wikipedia are in denial about this, is beyond me. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you're clearly cherry picking sources. Second, I'm not even sure if this source is reliable for this particular piece of info (it may be reliable for other stuff). This is one poll, conducted by... a public radio station? Published in a section which speaks of "Deep insight into the development and abysses of the media, the system and all the rest.". It's probably fine in the "Media portrayals" article where you put it, but as far as this article goes, what it does is prove that yes indeed, media and reliable sources are pretty unanimous in what happened (even if the fact that most Germans don't trust their media is true, that does not make the relevant sources unreliable. We are not most German people, but an encyclopedia).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether this still sufficiently relates to the first point raised: 1) The prhase "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" in the sentence "According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.". In my view this is about what to do with the Russian (informal) claims about Ukrainian fighters and SAMs.
Summarising it appears about half of us think this is already mentioned frequently enough in sentences throughout the article; and that this is enough since it is not the officially endorsed Russian government position. The other half thinks this warrants more attention; for example by creating a section on these theories. (I hope I summarised this fairly as I belong to the editors who think it is already covered enough I may implicitly favour that position).
I don't know how to take this further as these positions are unlikely to be combined in a compromise. Any suggestions? Arnoutf (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am abandoning my initial 4-section suggestion, based on opposition to the idea here and on comments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#WP:WEIGHT for prominent but widely criticized viewpoints. Any solution has to be acceptable to all.

Regarding the above comment, on what basis do you say that a statement by the Russian Ministry of Defense is is not the officially endorsed Russian government position? Is there something in the original Russian sources that I am missing here?

On the issue as to whether these positions are unlikely to be combined in a compromise, see the section below.

This theory has been mentioned once only by a Russian governmental official, at a time almost nothing was known. After that time no Russian official has confirmed/stood by that claim. Since that time official Russian claims have been much more cautious; only suggesting this as one option not the truth. So while this may have been the original Russian response immediately after the downing of MH17 there is no reason to assume this is still the case. Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense whatsoever. Russia does not need to explicitly keep affirming this position. Russia has consistently maintained that it had nothing to do with the downing of MH17. Since Ukraine has denied that the rebels captured one of its Buk launchers, that means that if Russia was not complicit in the downing of MH17, the perpetrator must have been Kiev. This is so obvious that Russia does not have to keep on repeating this explicitly. – Herzen (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 05

It is beginning to look like this content dispute cannot be resolved, but I am going to keep trying for at least a few more days.

Let me explain the advantages of arriving at a compromise here, even if you don't get everything you want.

This is very likely to be submitted to Arbcom if I close this as failed. I can't speak for arbcom, but if I can close this as resolved, they may very well decide to not accept the case.

Unlike DRN, Arbcom does not deal with content disputes, nor do they try to get people to compromise and/or agree. Instead, they deal with user conduct issues, and the tools they use to enforce their decisions are topic bans, blocks, and site bans. Unlike DRN volunteers, who purposely have zero authority other than persuasion, Arbcom is the ultimate authority on the English Wikipedia.

If you hang on to your position here and cannot find it in your heart to compromise and accept part of what you wanted, there is a very real chance that Arbcom is going to act in such a way that you will get none of what you wanted. You may very well end up as a spectator, forbidden to edit this or any related article. You may very well end up not being allowed to interact in any way with certain other editors. And you might end up not being able to edit Wikipedia at all. Even if you are 100% sure that any Arbcom ruling will favor you, keep in mind that Arbcom is good but they are not perfect, and mistakes are possible.

So I would advise everyone here to look deep into your hearts and try to find some area, no matter how minor, where you are willing to compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! Here is my advice to DRN volunteers. First of all, please do not take any requests submitted by POV-pushing SPA with significant block record. Second, please check wikipedia page in question. Do not take the case if the page was in a good condition, because it means that wikipedia community has been able to already resolve the problem. In all such cases your involvement will not be productive. Finally, you need to know the subject to help. Now, speaking about arbitration, this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions. If anyone has complaints on behavior by specific users, this should be submitted to WP:AE. Only if AE administrators are unable to deal with the problem, that indeed could go to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, please withdraw from this DRN case for 24 hours, starting with the time I post this comment. Everyone has been given ample warnings regarding talking about other editors, and "POV-pushing SPA with significant block record" is unacceptable behavior. If it happens again, it will be 48 hours. Everyone else, thank you for not responding. keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user; The interwiki page for the Netherlands version of this page reports that the update from the Dutch Safety Board appointed internationally to oversee the investigation was updated on 9 December with the following report;

"December 9, 2014

"Recovery of the wreckage of flight MH17, commissioned by the Dutch Safety Board, began at the crash site on Sunday, November 16, 2014. The recovery was preceded by a long period of preparations. To enable the recovery of wreckage, the Dutch Safety Board agreed certain arrangements with the Ministry of Disaster Management with regard to handing over the wreckage and SES (the Ukraine State Emergency Service) assistance. These documents have now been published. The first document concerns the recovery of the wreckage. The second concerns the period subsequent to the recovery.

"On December 9, 2014, two of the four convoys carrying wreckage have arrived at Gilze-Rijen air force base. The transport will be unloaded in accordance with a fixed procedure and will then be photographed, scanned and categorised. The investigation of the wreckage and preparation for the reconstruction effort will then commence."

As I am uninvolved here and only translating from the Netherlands page, users should note that Netherlands is awaiting the final investigation report due for completion within about 6 months. As a temporary solution to the debate on the English wikipedia version, it may make sense to insert an opening comment or reference to the concern that all analysis of the event are tentative subject to the final report due in 6 months. In any event, the Netherlands version of this page currently has twice as much emphasis on the human losses in this crash, rather than speculative and partial attempts at forensic reconstruction without having the final report. The current "Theory" section is kept to a bare minimum until the final report is released. Possibly such a temporary six-months measure might be of use at the English version of this page. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for any "measures" because article is in a great shape, thanks to excellent work by numerous contributors. Saying that, one could certainly make more emphasis on the human losses by adding more materials. The future results of the ungoing investigation must also be included when published, although they will not be an ultimate answer. But this has been discussed already on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, articles that are in great shape don't end up at ANI multiple times, at DRN with a good chance that the result will be "failed", and (likely) at arbcom. (Note that My very best wishes cannot answer until tomorrow. I have no problem with waiting). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kings of Judah#Synchronism material on the last kings of Judah vs. kings of Babylon

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Apologist en on 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Kings of Judah#Synchronism material on the last kings of Judah vs. kings of Babylon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Apologist en (talk · contribs)
• John Belushi (talk · contribs)
• JudeccaXIII (talk · contribs)
• Jeffro77 (talk · contribs)
• Lisa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about the diagram presenting synchronisms of the last kings of Judah with Neo-Babylonian rulers. The link was removed from Kings_of_Judah#Synchronism_to_fall_of_Judah as supposedly representing "original research" as defined by Wikipedia.

User:John Belushi who was the first to remove the diagram from the article on 2014.11.19 refused to substantiate his allegations and only repeated (in Polish, by the way) that the diagram constituted "original research". Later that user did not participate in the discussion on Talk:Kings_of_Judah#Synchronism_material_on_the_last_kings_of_Judah_vs._kings_of_Babylon. As User:John Belushi did not explain why he thought my work was "original research" I added a link to the diagram in the Kings of Judah article once again on 2014.11.20.

Soon afterwareds another user User:JudeccaXIII removed the link from the article claiming (just as User:John Belushi before) that it constituted "original research" and encouraged me to start a discussion at the article's Talk page. I followed his advice and started the discussion. User:John Belushi did not participate in the discussion until today (2014.12.07).

Clarifying: Editor John Belushi hasn't been involved in the discussion yet. Editor Apologist en is most likely referring to my first response in the discussion here: [27] — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The person who participated in the discussion most was User:Jeffro77. He encouraged me to supply reliable sources for the information shown in the diagram and "at the very least" present those sources at the file information page. I did that "very least" thing and provided reliable sources for all synchronisms and juxtapositions found in the diagram.

Finally, User:Lisa suggested that still a single comparison in the diagram was likely "original research" - the file was modified to comply with the suggestion.

After that no one has been able to show what information in the diagram lacked reliable sources or what new thesis was being introduced by me in the diagram.

However, there still seems to be no consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I invided users User:StAnselm (who seems to have contributed quite a lot to the contents of Kings of Judah) and User:Leszek Jańczuk (who seems friendly towards User:John Belushi and is one of the top Wikipedia contributors) to join the discussion, but so far neither of them has taken part in it.

How do you think we can help?

Decide whether or not the diagram (along with the sources provided at the file information page) constitutes an original research as defined by Wikipedia. If it is "original research" I want to learn:

• what are the elements of the diagram "for which no reliable, published sources exist"
• where in the diagram can you find "synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"
• is there anything I can do about this diagram to be acceptable here?

Summary of dispute by John Belushi

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIII

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Pretty much what I had to say here: [28]. The diagram has no source for dates other than...uh?...biblical versus? to determine dates of reigns, battles, exile etc. Even with a source, the source itself would just be a POV. Dates of events will always be debated, and if this diagram is implemented, who know what editor will change other dates of other articles. Its just too risky to place in Wikipedia articles. This digram is in violation of WP:OR & WP:NPOV. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jeffro77

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have nothing further to add that isn't already at Talk:Kings_of_Judah#Synchronism_material_on_the_last_kings_of_Judah_vs._kings_of_Babylon. I have informed the editor about the requirement for sources, and policies regarding original research. I have also informed him that my own views about what he would need to do "at the very least" do not constitute consensus for the inclusion of his work.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lisa

I've tried explaining how his creative work is inappropriate for Wikipedia, pointing him to various applicable policies, primarily WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I clearly lack the ability to communicate this to him in a way he'll understand. That's my shortcoming. I hope someone else succeeds. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kings of_Judah#Synchronism_material_on_the_last_kings_of_Judah_vs._kings_of_Babylon discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

@Apologist en, @Jeffro77, @Lisa; Drop in comment from Interwiki Wikiprojects; My familiarity with this page is after reading both the Russian and the Ukrainian versions of this page. If both sides are willing to follow strict adherence of WP:MoS and WP:DIAGRAM then this editor is prepared to start mediation provided that the disputing parties agree to follow strict adherence to WP:MoS and WP:DIAGRAM by signing their posts below. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If both sides are willing to follow strict adherence of WP:MoS and WP:DIAGRAM - User:Jeffro77, User:Lisa, User:JudeccaXIII or User:John Belushi don't have to adhere to either WP:MoS or WP:DIAGRAM as it is me only who is trying to place a link to the diagram on the page. But yes, I'm willing to modify the diagram to be fully compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines and I want to follow strict adherence to WP:DIAGRAM. However, first, before we discuss the diagram in the view of WP:DIAGRAM I would like the mediator to focus on what has been the main allegation against the diagram, i.e. "original research" and I want to hear clear, precise and direct answers to the simple questions I asked. So, if we first deal with what was required in the How do you think we can help? section then yes, I am willing to go in for such a mediation process. Apologist en (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I had not previously considered WP:DIAGRAM. This diagram may fail the third criterion, Their style and density of information are chosen to appeal to a general reader.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DIAGRAM is not a Wikipedia policy but an obsolete ideal or policy that failed consensus per WP:HISTORICAL. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the principle is still worthy of consideration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that the subject of biblical chronology is a matter of a lot of debate, and this diagram doesn't take any of that into account. For example, his notes on accession year and non-accession year dating. Yes, Thiele opines one way. But his is not the only view. The same applies for most of what he has there. In the body of an article, you can say, "Thiele holds this way and Tadmor holds that way" (for example; I don't recall Tadmor's view off the top of my head). But in an already overbusy graphic, it simply isn't possible. There is no way to create a graphic presentation of the final days of Judah without taking positions in scholarly debates, and that's just not what Wikipedia is for. His choice of position constitutes original research, and his combination of disparate sources constitutes synthesis. This really shouldn't even be an issue. It's only been made one by Apologist_en's fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not a place to showcase one person's views in writing or in graphic form. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lisa, I completely agree with. The fact is, its just too risky to just place a date for a king's reign, battle etc. without some opposing debate. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is no way to create a graphic presentation of the final days of Judah without taking positions in scholarly debates - well, here she is most likely right.
• , and that's just not what Wikipedia is for. His choice of position constitutes original research - and here she is definitely wrong. Wikipedia's policy goes like this (Neutral point of view): It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. - I may research just one point of view and present it as either text, diagram or image. If other editors find that other points of view are not included they can create a proper context for my research stating that it is held by either a majority or minority of scholars or that it is just one of many possible interpretations. Consider the following files used on some pages related to ancient Israel:

• Genealogy... used on Kings of Judah,
• Israelites... used on History of ancient Israel and Judah and Jewish history,
• David's kingdom... used on Land of Israel,
• 12 Tribes... used on Tribe of Judah
• or just any graphics included on Shemot_(parsha).

Do they represent multiple points of view (which definitely exist in each of the above mentioned issues) or do they reflect a choice of position? Was Solomon a historical figure? Where do Israelites come from? Was there such a thing as David's kingodm? 12 tribes and the territories supposedly occypied by them? Moses or Hebrews in Egypt? I can assure you that a huge percentage of (if not most) graphics on Wikipedia, esp. those dealing with human history or any history at all, present just one point of view (usually due to the limitation mentioned by her). That's perfectly OK with Wikipedia's policy as it is up to authors or other editors to place all those research works in a proper context on those pages which link to such files.

• his combination of disparate sources constitutes synthesis - and here she is wrong again. Wikipedia's policy does not say anything against combining various (and even disparate) sources except when it is to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. All scholars disagree with one another on a number issues. Each of them presents a slightly different version of history. To meet her requirement one has to support his work with publications by a single scholar as otherwise they are bound to combine more or less disparate sources - which is really absurd. Moreover, the word disparate is fairly inadequate in the case of my diagram. What is this difference of opinions which in her words makes those sources "disparate"? Everything revolves around the 1st of Nisan 597BC and whether Jehoiachin went to his exile a few days before the new year (which suggests the usage of the non-accession year system by the kings of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC) or a few days after the new year (which allows the usage of the accession year system and the fall of Jerusalem in 586BC). Otherwise, all the sources I drew on are farily unanimous in their presentation of some key events which I placed on the timeline (except for those where I put a question mark). We are talking about +/- 1 year difference (at most) in various interpretations of the events from the diagram and not about +/- 100 years we'd have to discuss when trying to date the eruption of Thera and its impact on the Egyptian chronology.

Apologist en (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en I'm not concerned about older discussions as you're supposed to be focusing on your own work as of right now per WP:LISTEN. I'm going to stick with my decision, no to the diagram per WP:OR because of debatable dates and timeline issues. Even with a source, the source is just a POV which will just cause a constant issue with WP:BALANCE. If you want more details on my decision, just read my summary of dispute. Also, let me remind you that WP:DIAGRAM is not policy, but an ideal or former policy that failed consensus per WP:HISTORICAL. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Current summary of dispute for mediation

Both editors, @Apologist en and @Jeffro77, have indicated that they are prepared to initiate the mediation process with strict application of WP:MoS. At this point it would be useful for @Apologist en to provide a list of the Kings which are being disputed and only of the Kings which are being disputed from the Diagram directly below. @Lisa and @JudeccaXIII, my request was for all participating editors here to acknowledge that strict WP:MoS shall be applied, with my shorthand reference to old WP:DIAGRAM which was meant to refer to the full list of the current WP:PERTINENCE + WP:IRELEV + WP:MOSIM, all of which will be applied. If you have concerns on any of these then this is the time to indicate it, otherwise participants in this discussion are asked to affirm that they agree that strict WP:MoS shall be applied throughout this discussion. To all editors, unless there is a response within the next 24 hours to providing the list of Kings being disputed, then this dispute may be seen as stale and may be archived on this basis. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to make any changes to my diagram to make it fully compliant with current Wikipedia's guidelines. It is hard for me to provide a list of the kings which are being disputed, because other editors have mostly used very general statements and avoided any direct answers to my questions. But judging by other editors comments here is the list of the Kings which are being disputed and only of the Kings which are being disputed from the Diagram:

• Josiah - challenged by User:Lisa on 3 December 2014

Apologist en (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not at any point stated that any of the content of the chart is necessarily incorrect (I did suggest a couple of very minor semantic fixes of his first version, but these did not relate to the historical content), although I concur with other editors that the information is debated in various secular sources. I have already explained the minimum requirements for Apologist en to provide sources for the chart. Since the editor followed that advice and provided sources at the image's information page, I have not debated the content (though I agree there are valid concerns), but I have instead explained to him that inclusion will be by consensus rather than being up to me. User:Apologist en has ignored these facts, and has instead—at the article's Talk page—opted to make an invalid comparison with an image I updated in 2011 (for which no conflicting sources exist).--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; While awaiting comments and responses to my note above from the other editors, your chart covers 610BC-560BC, and your list of only "Josiah" appears incomplete. This needs to be a complete list of the kings which you wish to discuss in order for this mediation to be complete, and the other kings names should be added at this time. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Here is the list of kings included in my diagram:

• kings of Judah: Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah;
• kings of Babylon: Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Nergal-sharezer.

Apologist en (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en and @Jeffro77; Yes, that is the list and @Jeffro77 has indicated that the dates need to be added here which you are associated for each of the kings from Judah and Babylon. Could you add the dates as you would like to defend them here based on your data. (You can date them in parenthesis next to each king's name.) FelixRosch (TALK) 17:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to make the chart with a source, the source should be from a reliable/already made diagram from major universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Hartford etc with approval of copyright grounds if any. @Apologist en, stick with the topic per WP:LISTEN meaning also to stay on DNR instead of going back to Talk:Kings of Judah to make this reply: [29]. Also @FelixRosch, this case can not be close/archive because this case has not yet been opened by the head administrator or administrators in charge of maintaining DNR. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch; Here you are:

• Josiah (? - 609 BC)
• Jehoahaz (609 BC)
• Jehoiakim (609 BC - 598 BC)
• Jehoiachin (598 BC - 597 BC)
• Zedekiah (597 BC - 587 BC)
• Nabopolassar (? - 605 BC)
• Nebuchadnezzar (605 BC - 562 BC)
• Amel-Marduk (562 BC - 560 BC)
• Nergal-sharezer (560 BC - ?)

@JudeccaXIII; If you're going to make the chart with a source, the source should be from a reliable/already made diagram from major universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Hartford etc with approval of copyright grounds if any - I am really at a loss for words... Maybe you should write a new WP:OR policy or at least a section on creating diagrams? Think about it.

Apologist en (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologist en Then please do clarify, what is your source for this unproved diagram. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII. Go to the file information page. Scroll down till you see "Sources". The diagram is not based on a single source. It is based on multiple reliable secondary sources - i.e. it is a synthesis. This synthesis is not used to promote any new thesis. My research does not produce new knowledge but rather presents the existing knowledge in a new form (Research#Original_research). Apologist en (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologist enI'm willing to work with that...multiple sources if even better — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Adminstrative side note: Since DRN volunteer FelixRosch is currently leading a discussion and appears to have opened the case, I've marked the case as 'open'. If this is incorrect then please let me know. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob; My confirmation of acknowledgment by @Apologist en and @Jeffro77. Note to @JudeccaXIII; Your last comment appears to be moving towards the edit presented for this dispute; if you are requested further specific sources then this is likely a good time to put them forward while we are waiting for the other editors to offer their views. Note to @Apologist en; While we await the other editors, you might want to double check if your facts are in full agreement with the Genealogy chart at the start of the article page itself, as well as if it is in full agreement with the formatted Table of listed kings in the opening section of the page. Also, you should indicate if you are planning to alter any of the data in that existing Genealogy chart or the formatted Table of listed kings already in the article. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: I believe that the formatted Table of listed kings in the opening section of the page contains incomplete information as far as king Jehoiachin is concerned: it currently reads 598 (BC) within the Thiele column while it should read: 598-597 (BC). It is definitely true for the 1970 edition of his work. Moreover, more recently a number of notable scholars (e.g. Ernst Kutsch or John Bright) have opted for Zedekiah's reign as having been 597-587 BC while adopting Thiele's dates for other rulers which is not really reflected in the Table. I can modify the record for Thiele:Jehoiachin to "598-597" and add a reference to Thiele:Zedekiah to inform readers about alternative interpretations. As far as the Genealogy chart goes I'm not intending to modify it. Apologist en (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; That is clear as a proposed correction, and everyone should probably wait for a least overnight to allow all the other editors a chance to respond to this new section. It is important, since you have been challenged on this material, that you try to provide the exact citation and page number for the John Bright book which you are using as your support here and try to be precise. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch:

"A History of Israel" by John Bright (Westminster John Knox Press, 2000):

• p. 324 - king Josiah's death in 609 BC
• p. 325 - Jehoahaz reigning for three months in 609 BC
• pp. 325, 327 - Jehoiakim's reign lasts from 609 BC till 598 BC
• p. 327 - Jehoiachin's three month rule lasting from 598 BC till 597 BC
• pp. 327, 330 - Zedekiah reign from 597 BC till 587 BC

Apologist en (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en, I told you to stick with the DNR discussion instead of continuing with the discussion on Talk:Kings of Judah per WP:LISTEN. You failed to listen, and now you're trying to make a point with this inappropriate response: [30] against Jeffro77 per WP:GAME and close to personal attacking behavior and discussing content without informing DNR participants. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary as on 11 December; Integrating comments into one section on One Page

@Apologist en; Dispute resolution is normally limited to being a single forum for you to express your opinions in a neutral forum without your simultaneous use of other forums; your comments will make more sense and be more effective if you keep them in one place, here, and if you could acknowledge not to spread them out on different pages. It would be useful if you could integrate your comments into this discussion and refer others to this page as well during mediation. Comment to @JudeccaXIII and @Jeffro77 and @Lisa; All content issues should be kept in one place during dispute resolution and if you have comments from other forums or Talk pages from yesterday or today, then they should be re-posted here. The latest reference here is that the List of Kings presented yesterday in the last section directly above apparently has reliable sources (see John Bright). Could you indicate your view on this content, focusing on the content alone. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch; That was not intentional. I couldn't commit my edit under the Talk:Kings... section here and I thought that further discussion should be continued on the original talk page. Shall I repost that bit here? If yes, in which section? Apologist en (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; At present, there should be a chance for the other editors to first respond to the new citations and authorities you have just provided yesterday. All three editors who have made previous challenges here, @JudeccaXIII and @Jeffro77 and @Lisa, are experienced editors and they should be given a day or so to indicate their present concerns on the new citations and corrections you have listed. Give them a day or so to answer, and they should be able to indicate the content concerns which they currently wish to express. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My only comment right now is that not a single one of these synchronisms is acceptable. The whole graphic is ridiculously out of place on Wikipedia. A table, in the article, with columns that show synchronisms according to different scholars... that could be of some value here. But this graphic... I mean, come on. Look at it. The only reason I pointed out the issue with Josiah's death was to give one example of a problem which pervades the whole thing. Treating it as though it's the only problem I pointed to misses the point entirely.

This graphic constitutes a piece of original research. Even if every individual point in it can be sourced, the graphic -- as a whole -- is original research. It is a novel piece of work. As such, if he were to publish it in a reliable source, it could, perhaps, be legitimately added to an article. As things stand, however, there is literally nothing whatsoever that he can do to make it okay. Look at his list of sources on the page. These are not Wikipedia sources; these are footnotes on a piece of original research.

Additionally, just speaking to the merits of the work itself, he's cited Thiele and Galil, who disagree on the chronology. And he's done so in a way that stands as his own synthesis of the sources. Honestly, I can't believe this much time has been spent on this. I really don't have anything else to say here. Last time I commented here, Apologist en responded with personal attacks. I expect that he'll do so this time as well. I don't have the patience for him. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en & FelixRosch I can only confirm some dates of reigning kings according to my only trusted source. I haven't put much time into finding sources, so I hope this might help clarify somethings at least.

• King Josiah's reign (640–609 BCE)
• King Jehoiachin was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar in (597 BCE)
• King Nabopolassar broke Babylon off from Assyrian rule in (626 BCE)
• King Nebuchadnezzar II's reign (604–561 BCE) & dissolved the monarchy of Judah in (586 BCE)

The source is close to the current year: The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture (2011) Judith R. Baskin Starting link: [31] Here is a more extended timeline of of reigns for Israel (Samaria), Judah, and Babylon from the University of Pennsylvania Press (2010) pg. 334–335[32] — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The links provided don't seem to provide any directly relevant information. However, even those details are not unambiguously correct or agreed upon in secular sources. A good number of sources indicate that Josiah began to reign in 639[33]; that 587 is the correct year for 'dissolving the monarchy of Judah'[34]; that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605 BC[35]; additionally, Jehoiachin was exiled in 597 but before the calendar year beginning Nisan. These issues could be presented in the chart with a few 'c.'s (i.e. circa).

But aside from all of that, I already previously commended Apologist en for providing sources at the diagram's information page (for which I was 'thanked' with an invalid comparison with an unrelated uncontroversial image I added 3 years ago). As previously—and repeatedly—stated, if there is consensus to add the image, I'm not overly concerned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; All 3 editors have responded and there appears to be significant concern raised about your diagram. If possible for you, it might be useful for you to distinguish between (a) facts in the diagram, and (b) the diagram itself. Regarding (b), it would be very difficult for you to make your case in its current form. Therefor it might make sense for you to concentrate on phase (a) and consider listing in sequence the facts in your diagram as you would prefer to see them in the main body of the article, either in one of the existing tables or within the narrative sections of the main body of the article. Even if your list numbers up the half a dozen or a full dozen changes, it is still useful at this time if you could list in sequence the facts from the diagram (with citations) which you would like to see in the main body of the article first. As a suggestion to you, this should be done before you return to your diagram itself, if this is possible for you to do with citations for each fact you are defending in sequence. Comment to @JudeccaXIII and @Jeffro77 and @Lisa; My suggestion for mediation is that this edit be considered on the basis of separating (a) the facts in the diagram from (b) the diagram itself, the latter of which has been challenged; it is up to @Apologist en, to decide if a sequence of the facts @Apologist wants in the main body of the article can be listed here with citations. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch

Regarding (b) - I could modify the diagram in the PDF form (in SVG it would be more complicated) by adding another page to it - as was once suggested by Jeffro77 - and provide there a list of events, synchronisms and juxtapositions in a chronological order with references to reliable secondary sources. Along each event I could also provide other possible interpretations I am familiar with and I am willing to present on that list any interpretation proposed by either editor if they supply me with a secondary source reference. Squeezing all possible interpretations into one diagram is hardly possible, but I can easily present all of them on subsequent pages of the PDF.

Regarding (a) - I will provide the list you asked for, but I need some time to rewrite it to fit Wikipedia patterns - as @Lisa does not regard them as references in their present form.

Apologist en (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; If that's possible then your emphasis should be on phase (a). Try to be as focused as possible in posting your full list here, and you can use the John Bright citations you already mentioned above. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as a matter of clarification, it isn't that they aren't sources; they just aren't sources for his claims. They are sources for what the various inscriptions say and for what a small selection of scholars have to say about the chronology. They are not sources for his conclusions. Which is the essence of original research: drawing conclusions. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch; I have followed your suggestion and started to work on the text to be incorporated into the main body of the article. This will take some time, but the work in progress can be seen in my sandbox on Wikipedia. If you had rather any unfinished bits of my work posted in this thread please let me know.

@Lisa; Could you be precise and tell us, in the meantime, what are my conclusions not supported by the sources?

Apologist en (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; That sounds reasonable and try to make sure that all the citations are accurate. @Lisa is indicating that all of your citations are subject to be double checked. You can likely use the week-end to create your full list and then post the completed list when you have all the citations included. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

List of eight highlighted points for discussion 14 December

(Responses and comments may be posted in the "Response" section opened directly below the References listed here for the eight highlighted points. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

@FelixRosch; Here is the text to be incorporated into the Kings of Judah article containing all the information found in my diagram (plus some extra facts) along with secondary sources. I tried not to miss anything, if any clarification or source is still required I'm ready to supply it. I hope the "References" section won't influence the layout on this page.

The 37th year of the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar has been unambiguously dated to 568/567 BC based on an ancient astronomical diary (VAT 4956). That, in turn, allowed precise dating of events described in other Babylonian documents of particular importance for Jewish history:

• the last Egyptian intervention in Assyria in the summer of the 17th year of Nabopolassar was recorded on tablet BM 21901 and has been linked to the biblical battle of Megiddo and the death of Josiah (usually dated to Sivan or early Tammuz 609 BC), the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (while Necho II was engaged in fighting for Assyrians) and the subsequent installment of Jehoiakim (placed either before or after Tishri 1, 609 BC);
• the battle of Carchemish in the spring or summer of Nabopolassar's 21st year mentioned on tablet BM 21946 took place around Sivan 605 BC and was identified as the event spoken of in the book of Jeremiah 46:2 while the subsequent conquest of Syro-Palestine by Babylonians has been associated with the siege of Jerusalem described in Daniel 1:1 which in turn enabled scholars to synchronize a number of events recorded only in the Hebrew Scriptures;
• the above mentioned tablet BM 21946 speaks of a military campaign in Syro-Palestine during Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, seizing the city of Yaahudu on Adar 2 (dated to March 15/16 - evening to evening -, 597 BC), capturing its king and appoining there a new ruler. This series of events has been unanimously associated with a story found in 2 Chronicles 36:10 which deals with a siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians (a few months after the death of Jehoiakim), the ensuing deportation of Jehoiachin and the installment of Zedekiah sometime around Nisan 1;
• the fact of Jehoiachin, his family and servants having been captives in Babylon in the 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar and onwards has been verified following the publication of the so called Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets
• the accession year of Amel-Marduk was dated to 562/561 BC on the basis of various documents the best known of which is the Uruk King List (tablet IM 65066); this information was in turn used to date king Jehoiachin's release from prison on April 3 (Adar 27), 561 BC.

No chronicles recording military activities of Nebuchadnezzar during 593 - 562 BC exist except for tablet BM 33041 dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (568/567 BC) and containing description of his army invading Egypt, which has also been cited in the context of predictions found in Ezekiel 29:17-20. Due to this scarcity of extrabiblical sources one of the most important dates in Jewish history relating to the destruction of Jerusalem is a matter of debate with some scholars favouring 587 BC while others opting for 586 BC. Neither view seems to be a majority and the interpretation depends on a number of factors, especially:

• assuming either the accession year system or the non-accession year system for the last kings of Judah;
• counting regnal years of the last Jewish rulers from either Nisan 1 or Tishri 1;
• chossing either Adar or Nisan 597 BC as the beginning of king Zedekiah's reign and Jehoiachin's exile.

An indepth analysis of the subject seems to favour the 587 BC solution at the same time showing that the last kings of Judah may have employed Tishri-based non-accession year system.

References

Reflist
Apologist en (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Responses and Comments on eight highlighted points and references from 14 December

This section is for all editors to present their responses to the content of the eight highlighted points which @Apologist is presenting for inclusion in the article. @Lisa, @Jeffro77, @JudeccaXIII and other editors may list their comments either to all the points or selectively as needed below in this section. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the suggested text above is good, and the sourcing appears to be quite complete. (I'm not sure the incorrect dating for the fall of Jerusalem as 586 even deserves that much attention, as a direct comparison of BM 21946 with Jeremiah 52:28-30—in addition to everything else known of the period—for the dating of the first siege allows for no year but 587 for the subsequent one, and this is more than adequately addressed by Young). There's some editorial commentary in the suggested text, particularly in the latter parts, that should be rephrased in order to be in an encyclopedic tone. As expressed quite early in the discussion, I do have some concern that such a level of detail may be tangential to the article in question.[36] Parts of the text above should probably be merged into Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) and Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; Your edit has now taken a significantly different form than what was originally put forward here. At this time you appear to have reliable sources for your list of edits for the narrative portion of the main body of the article. @Jeffro77 is making the additional point here that you should notice that academic style is oriented on on-going research, whereas encyclopedic convention is to only deal with established information and facts; it is the encyclopedic style which @Jeffro77 is saying should normally be followed on Wikipedia. @Lisa and @JudeccaXIII has expressed similar concerns previously. Could you indicate what your preferred plan is for the article now that your edit has taken a significantly different form and appears to have reliable sources more firmly established? FelixRosch (TALK) 16:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch; My special interest is in creating diagrams and timelines. If @Jeffro77 notices any statements that require their style updated he's free to correct them. I can include this text in the article and if @Jeffro77 wishes to chop it up and place its parts in various articles - I won't fight over that. I just want to include the diagram which I have proved is based on reliable sources and does not push any new theory which is not to be found in those sources. I must admit I got tired with this topic and the last weekend made me rethink a number of things. If there is no consesnsus for me to place the diagram either in this (Kings of Judah) or some other article related to the specific period in Jewish history then I'm not going to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm too old to spend the rest of my life creating well-sourced material that goes to trash. It simply feels like banging my head against the wall now. @FelixRosch; thank you for your time and patience. And thanks to @Jeffro77 for his favourable comments, whatever his view on my diagram is. Apologist en (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The text provided probably isn't suitable for the article in question because it is largely beyond the scope of the overall lineage of the kings of Judah (i.e. undue weight), so it probably won't remain there. However, it may be suitable for the other articles already indicated. (The same applies to the diagram itself, consensus pending.)

It is entirely unhelpful to say things like if we can't use my diagram, I won't edit Wikipedia. If you lose interest in editing Wikipedia articles, that's fine. If you want to continue to contribute, that's fine too. Wikipedia is certainly not the only venue for hosting your diagram.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; Your edit has progressed to the point of meeting the standards of reliable sources, and perhaps you could consider taking up @Jeffro77 on his previous offer to start to bring the edits with citations into the main body of multiple articles which he refers to rather than just one article. Wikipedia has need of contributors that are good with graphs and diagrams, and these types of efforts are usually appreciated. My suggestion is that if you attempt the multiple edits, that you attempt them one a time and since you have reliable sources it may go in your favor this time. Let me know your preference to determine which direction you prefer. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jeffro77; It is not that I don't want to - I hardly can. Another thing is that Kings of Judah is not about their overall lineage but about anything of significance that is related to them. You will most likely agree with me that the period presented in my diagram is covered more extensively and provides more dates and names for possible synchronisms than any other period in the Israelite monarchy. My references do contain info which might be out of interest but that is why these are references. The only thing in the text itself which might seem irrelevant is info about the document on Nebuchadnezzar invading Egypt. What other things in the text are irrelevant? Will you name them?

@FelixRosch; I just got tired. I spent hours creating the diagram based on reliable sources and did the work that others were too lazy or uninterested to do - I did my best to present all that info from various sources as a single piece and I managed to. Yes, not all points of view are represented in the diagram, but wherever they are missing they differ no more than just one year from the dates I provided. And it's no problem with me if the caption under the diagram explicitly says that there are also other points of view, I can even name them and list them wherever they are. I can even change the diagram to adopt it to @Lisa's or @JudeccaXIII's views, but I need their help in making all those elements fit together. I can frankly see no single regulation in Wikipedia's policy which would classify my work as WP:OR. And still, I cannot add it to the article, cos there are constantly new objections all the time. Is there any article the diagram fits? Can I create a new section "Synchronisms with Babylonian kings" and place it there? I know I'll hear "no consensus". But why? @Lisa kept accusing me of pushing some new theories - did she ever name just a single one? I'm simply concerned that that's what's going to happen with each next diagram that I'm about to make. So what is the point of spending countless hours of meticuouls research in vain and hear there is literally nothing whatsoever that he can do to make it okay. And I think @Lisa is right - I can provide reliable sources for each piece of info, I can discuss all other points of view, I can make the people who accuse me of pushing new theories quiet - but, hey - it's always not OK. And as far as @Jeffro77's suggestion goes I have no problem with him splitting this information among various articles - but again I don't quite agree with him (except for a single point) that these facts are irrelevant to the article. But I'm not really going to fight over it. If he finds issues with my text - let him suggest how to modify it and let him do some work instead of constantly complaining that something's still wrong. If he is willing to help me - he's welcome. The text is not copyrighted. Apologist en (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en; Note above that @Jeffro77 has actually suggested that you might as a start consider placing them in Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) and Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC). You might try one of your edits there and let us know what occurs. @Jeffro77 can voice his own view when he signs on, and possibly he could verify your edit. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch; @Jeffro77; I could hardly find any information in the Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) that was incomplete, I just added a reference regarding the death of Jehoiakim and a note on the date of Zedekiah's installment. There are a number of unsourced statements in the article, but I removed just a couple of them not to start a storm. There is no information im my text that would be new to the Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) article (maybe except for what is found in footnotes). The first section of the article is based totally on primary sources which - as far as I am correct - are considered unreliable under Wikipedia's policies, but I am not sure if I can remove that huge chunk of the article. The last paragraph ends with conclusions that I agree with, but it starts with a fairly misleading statement: However, the Babylonian Chronicles support the enumeration of Zedekiah's reign on a non-accession basis. The support for the non-accession system usage by Zedekiah is more complex than that, if it were otherwise there would be no disagreement as to 587 BC. For the time being I decided not to remove the statement, although it looks like an original research (I can't remember coming across a similar claim in any of the works I have browsed through. If it is not to be found in Young 2004 it is most probably an unsupportable claim). Apologist en (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch I am withdrawing from this discussion, and I would like to thank you for volunteering in this discussion. Through your guidance, I know everyone here can come up with an equal agreement amongst each other. @Apologist en I would like to thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia. Your diagram was created by assuming good faith, and I should have realized that first instead of denouncing your edits as uncunstructive, for that I am truly sorry. I know you're a promising editor, and Wikipedia really needs editors such as yourself, especially in the biblical section; And I hope to see your edits in the near future. That is all, Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en, regarding your query about scope, it is not the material is "irrelevant", but (as already stated) it constitutes excessive detail about only one aspect of the article Kings of Judah. It is not the case that articles should present "anything of significance that is related to them"; rather, the material must be warranted for the scope of the article, especially for broad topics. That is why I suggested it may be more relevant to other articles that deal with the more specific topic.

I see some references have been added at Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC), which is much appreciated. I have removed the commentary that was included with the references, separated the separate sources into separate citations, and removed one statement not supported by the cited source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@JedeccaXIII; Thanks for your comments and for your note to @Apologist en. Comment to @Apologist; Your edits to those two pages looked good to me, and @Jeffro77 suggested some refinements. I notice that the 587 Siege page also has an old 2009 template at the top, and possibly your comment to me looks like it suggests that the template should be updated/deleted based on your evaluation. Possibly you could update/delete the template at the top of that page as to your evaluation. Perhaps you could indicate your immediate concerns since your edits appear to be retained on the Seige of Jerusalem page. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jeffro77; The changes are fine with me. You might just want to consider the fact that Young's analysis implies that Zedekiah might not have been the only king to follow the non-accession system in which case Jehoiakim's death falls before Tishri 1 based on pure maths. Most previous scholars assumed the accession year system and so far there is little to no study on Jehoiakim's death taking into account Young's conclusions. So the fact can just be mentioned, but any speculations as to "why" would be an original research at the time being.

@JudeccaXIII; Thanks for your courage. I find it's often much more difficult to admit own errors than not to make them.

@FelixRosch; My primary interest, as I've mentioned before, is creating some visual stuff - at least for the time being. I might not be an artist, but that's what I enjoy doing. I do appreciate your help and wisdom in guiding this discussion. But I kind of feel you would like to see me as a typical editor working with text, while I really do prefer contributing by working on visual elements. That may change in the future, but at present I would really have to force myself to change my primary areas of interest. That's why I would like to come back to my diagram and try to do something about it.

I was looking for a more suitable place for it and found the History of ancient Israel and Judah article. There is also the Babylonian captivity entry which deals with the period covered in my diagram. If there are no objections I'm going to incorporate my work to one of those articles. Apologist en (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Iran–Saudi Arabia football rivalry

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Pahlevun on 12:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Iran–Saudi Arabia football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pahlevun (talk · contribs)
• FutbalTeamha (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In Iran–Saudi Arabia football rivalry#Origins, User:FutbalTeamha wants to add something which I think is against WP:OR. I asked him to provide a reliable source on the matter, but he rejects to do so and blames me for having a conflict of Interest. His avoiding to adress my concerns and multiple reverts has lead to edit war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We had a discussion here in the Talkpage. He refuses to answer my last message.

How do you think we can help?

Providing a third opinion on the dispute may resolve it.

Summary of dispute by User:FutbalTeamha

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Iran–Saudi Arabia football rivalry discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment from uninvolved editor; To both editors, @Pahlevun and @FutbalTeamha, This is a new page created less than a month ago with very low daily page counts. Are both of you sure that this page would make it through a review for its relevance to Wikipedia based on no comparable articles being found on the disambiguation search for other "rivalry" pages? This type of material, when and if it is covered, usually appears on individual football team pages. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would it make it through a review? Not sure, don't care much; @Pahlevun's the one who created the article. I just think the origins section should include the actual origins. I've added referenced material and the other user continues to delete it.--FutbalTeamha (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment — Felix makes a good point, the article is pretty unconventional. This doesn't mean it fails WP:GNG per se, and I'm open to the prospect of its inclusion alongside other articles about similar international sporting rivalries. With regards to FutbalTeamha's addition to the article, I think what he says is actually accurate and can probably be backed up by reliable academic sources, so I don't know if it falls into the realm of original research. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. I don't think it needs to go into detail on the Islamization of either country, seeing as it's specifically about their football rivalry. The Sunni–Shia rift is an ideological component and warrants mentioning, but that's about it. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user; There has been no update to this section in the last three (3) days. Unless the editors indicate an interest in pursuing resolution, then @Keithbob is justified to consider this dispute as inactive and close this resolution as being stale. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Open for discussion

I'm now formally opening this case for discussion and moderation. User:Pahlevun and User:FutbalTeamha are you ready to proceed with the dispute resolution process?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus

– New discussion.

Filed by Robert M Johnson on 05:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Tyrannosaurus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Robert M Johnson (talk · contribs)
• FunkMonk (talk · contribs)
• Dinoguy2 (talk · contribs)
• BigCat82 (talk · contribs)
• Raptormimus456 (talk · contribs) aka Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur

Dispute overview

The Tyrannosaurus article displays information leading readers to believe this species of creature had feathers. While, some of its relatives did indeed have feathers, the Tyrannosaurus species was only ever found to have scales. The article should reflect the possibility that the creature may have had feathers, and not lead readers to believe they definitely did. Since it is still not known which is true, the article should remain neutral of the issue.

The two main supporting arguments of the feathered tyrannosaurus issue both deal with phylogenetic bracketing, and involve the distant feathered relatives (animals in a different order) and two animals in the (supposed) same order Yutyrannus and Dilong.

The Dilong is a species which scientists are still having some difficulty placing in its evolutionary tree, and it is currently disputed whether or not it is closely related to tyrannosaurs at all (some say the Dilong is more closely related to raptors).

The Yutyrannus lived in a climate where things would have been extremely cold, and it is a common belief that they retained feathers while the tyrannosaurus did not retain its feathers.

At any rate, the animal species, Tyrannosaurus is still believed by many to have exclusively had scales. Since it is still not known whether or not this species had scales, feathers, or both... the article should state exactly that.

Also, there is an image displayed on the article that depicts the Tyrannosaurus with wings instead of arms. I do not believe there is a consensus anywhere regarding a winged Tyrannosaurus, but this image is hiding behind the "feathered" tyrannosaurus argument, and should be removed indefinitely. This image was created by a user, and his depiction of filamentous feathers happened to involve replacing the animals arms with wings for some strange reason.

Thank you for reading and contributing your opinions on this matter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talked with users on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

You can provide a third party opinion on both the Neutral pov issue, the factual information on the article, and the winged tyrannosaurus image.

Summary of dispute by FunkMonk

• It would be better to just continue the discussion on the talkpage. The dispute has in no way been intense. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dinoguy2

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

All current, verifiable sources state that T. rex "probably" had feathers, using scientific inference based on related species. Supposed scale impressions attributable to this species are currently unpublished hearsay, and counter-arguments to the above position consist largely of original research/speculation. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BigCat82

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Raptormimus456

The scientific consensus is that Tyrannosaurus had some kind of filamentous integument, which is supported by climatory evidence as well as phylogenetic evidence (and possibly fossil evidence, but that's unpublished ATM). The "wings" of Matt's image are more akin to those of ground birds than songbirds (basically, they're not pennaceous, but a middleground of plumaceous and pennaceous); plus the average temperature of Hell Creek (where Tyrannosaurus is found) was 10 degrees Celsius, not much different to the climate that Yutyrannus, a tyrannosauroid of similar size, was living in with a large covering of plumaceous feathers. Stating that T.rex was fully scaled is only using fossils, which are prone to preservation bias; after all, we didn't know Ornithomimus had pretty bird-like feathers until recently, despite having known about it for centuries at that point, and the material the fossils are preserved in and postmortem decomposition affect extraintegumentary preservation (Hell Creek or the Lance aren't lagerstattes, after all). But considering that Tyrannosauridae is bracketed by groups with known feather impressions (Compsognathidae, Ornithomimidae and most importantly Tyrannosauroidea) makes the assumption that T.rex and all other advanced tyrannosaurids sported some kind of filamentous integument logically sound.

Everyone naturally assumes animals like Smilodon had fur despite having no fossil evidence of it at all due to phylogenetics, so saying that T.rex was likely feathered because many of it's relatives were is pretty much the same thing, really. Saying T.rex was exclusively scaled is ignoring the phylogenetic aspect of it's classification; plus the possible naked skin impressions that Sereno has in his lab awaiting description could be the nail in the coffin of a leather-hided T.rex. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Where has this been discussed before? I can find zero trace of any discussions on any of the names users. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has been on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm - that's what you get for taking people's word for it. @Robert M Johnson: you need to notify the participants, per the notice at the top of the page. If this is not done within 48 hours, I will have to close this as malformed. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You personally... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Robert M Johnson; It is the responsibility of the filing editor to send notifications or pings to the participating editors. At present after 24 hours none of the editors have responded. @Mdann52; It wasn't clear if you are volunteering for this, in the event that all the editors do eventually show up. It appears that whoever does eventually do this would need to know about the phylogeny-ontogeny distinctions as used in general biology and medicine. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this was never made clear to me anywhere. I've posted notifications on the involved users talk pages. -Rob^talk 07:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor; @Robert M Johnson; It has been almost three days and the other editors do not appear to be entering the discussion. Please note that one of the editors has commented that there may not have been sufficient interaction on the Talk page at the Article page for dispute resolution to commence. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Elon Musk#Co-founder_again.21

– New discussion.

Filed by Heuh0 on 01:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Elon Musk#Co-founder again.21 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Heuh0 (talk · contribs)
• Gopher65 (talk · contribs)
• Andyjsmith (talk · contribs)
• N2e (talk · contribs)
• Farquezy (talk · contribs)
• Dirac740 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some editors believe that the current wording regarding Musk as a cofounder of PayPal and Tesla Motors is misleading in regards to what actually happened (the founding of the company was complicated in terms of parties involved). Some editors oppose this view.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It has been disputed heavily of the last couple of years, editing has gone back and forth and all editors are getting tired. At the coordination of N2e, a final discussion has been opened and is currently in progress to reach a consensual agreement.

How do you think we can help?

Summary of dispute by Gopher65

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Andyjsmith

This is a narrow and scholastic discussion that is only taking place on the Elon Musk talk page, and not on the talk pages of the articles about his companies. There have been some disputes in these articles but they appear to have been resolved, so why they should linger on here is unclear.

The main areas of dispute relate to Musk's status in respect of Tesla Motors and PayPal. There was once a serious legal issue raised in respect of Tesla but it was resolved and is detailed in that article. There is simply no dispute about it - all the founders have publicly agreed that Musk is one of them. I have seen no reliable evidence to suggest otherwise nor has any ever been produced by the disputants despite repeated requests. To admit of any ambiguity about his status is simply misleading - there is no ambiguity.

The PayPal issue seems to be a matter of semantics. Two companies merged, so the founders of those companies are founders of the new company (nobody else could be) and Musk is no different from any of the other founders. Then the new company was renamed in line with the main product of only one of the companies. But again, there is no evidence that anyone has ever challenged statements by Musk and others that he is a co-founder.

The ambiguity about his status exists only in the minds of a very few wikipedia editors, who are unable to provide evidence to support their position.

BTW I'm puzzled as to why one of the participants in the dispute was uninvited from this discussion and the user summary sections were removed. andy (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by N2e

In my view, the content dispute has gone on for too long—for at least a couple of years now—and with way too many edits back and forth on the article main page, simply because it was not taken to the Talk page, hashed out with sources and policy, and a page-specific consensus developed on Musk and his founder status in each of his several ventures. (BTW, I suspect that a very wide group of editors have ping-ponged the Musk status over that long time period: much wider than the half-dozen listed here, and whom happened to be on the Talk page working to improve this article more recently.)

I find the discussions on the Talk page that I've seen disputing Musk's status to generally be too wordy, and on too many issues at once, and so have tended not to participate in them. That is, until recently, when I have offered comment that simpler, single-issue, proposals should be put forward, because in my experience these are much easier to see if consensus develops or not, and then let an outside closer close the discussion in a week to a month. Rinse, lather, repeat. That idea has won some acceptance from other editors, and some progress is now being made.

Unfortunately, even on that, complex, multi-issue, wide discussions got started between some editors, and I did not see any consensus developing. Now, even with the current proposal, it got a bit complexified by being two simultaneous proposals. I think it would be better to slow down, do such proposals one at a time, in a slow and methodical process, and begin to build trust amongst the several editors whom, I observe, may not have had that recently. Nevertheless, I am participating in the two current proposal discussions as best I can, as they were put forward by whomever proposed them. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Farquezy

I don't have much else to add other than what Andy said. He has sourced multiple articles and videos, including from the company's own websites, that identify Elon as a cofounder. Farquezy (talk)

Summary of dispute by Dirac740

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Elon Musk#Co-founder_again.21 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but merely reminding Heuh0: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Elon Musk} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks did not realise this was needed as the post was not meant to be from just me, but all editors in the discussion as a whole, as it was discussed on the talk page. I will notify them now. Heuh (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

talk:Acts of the Apostles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sfarney on 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

Closed 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:Acts of the Apostles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sfarney (talk · contribs) JudeccaXIII (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have edited the Acts of the Apostles to reflect a more neutral point of view, rather than religious doctrine and tradition. JudeccaXIII immediately reverted it, saying those statements were my opinion. I reverted it explaining again my reasons, in more detail. Elizium23 reverted it. I went to JudeccaXIII personal page and explained at greater length why my changes were more in line with Wikipedia policy and philosophy. After some discussion on JudeccaXIII's personal page, JudeccaXIII said the discussion was "over" and I should take the matter to the subject talk page. So I copied the text to the discussion page, and JudeccaXIII deleted it. I reverted the page and added more text, and JudeccaXIII deleted it again. I have since learned that the original text contains whole sentences copied from http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/ntintro/acts.htm Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. Explained reasons for edits 2. Discussed on JudeccaXIII personal page 3. Discussed on Talk:Acts of the Apostles page 4. Now that JudeccaXIII is repeatedly deleting the discussion, I have run out of options. How do you think we can help? Look at the original version of the page. Determine whether the original version contains a religious doctrinal view (as I maintain) rather than a historical view (as Wikipedia should maintain). Look at my changes. Determine whether my changes move the article toward a more balanced neutral position. Determine whether the topic talk page is being used correctly by the parties. Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIII Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Comment from uninvolved editor John Carter This looks very much to me like a request to judge the appropriate content of an article. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure that this is the best possible venue for such a discussion. I think a more reasonable, and probably more effective, way to get further outside input would be to take the discussion back to the article talk page, and maybe invite outside comment through an RfC with notices at the appropriate wikiproject talk pages and, maybe, noticeboards. I would also suggest that the individuals involved if possible consult the rather lengthy articles in the leading recent reference sources relating to the Bible in general and perhaps the Acts in particular and see what contend they contain and to what weight. I would assume the recent Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible would possibly be the best single source with which to start such a review, although there are any number of other high-quality reference books which would have significant material relating to this subject. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC) talk:Acts of the Apostles discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I didn't even receive a DNR participating message, and I'm not participating in this bogus DRN topic anyway. If anyone has any questions, you can message me on my talk page. Also, look under section Was Acts Authored by Luke on my talk page, so the issue can be better clarified. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC) If one of the main users involved in the dispute refuses to comment, the case cannot proceed. Would it be appropriate to close this? --Biblioworm 22:43, 17 December 2014 (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.

Sri Lankan presidential_election,_2015

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Eng.M.Bandara on 11:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC).

Closed 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:Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Eng.M.Bandara (talk · contribs) Bgwhite (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Admin [User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite] was involved in a dispute at the Sri lankan presidential elections 2015 article. He had reverted the article 5 times in a period of 24 hours. He removed my contribution including the banner, to which weight of certain reported issues was disputed. I asked for his assistance here [[User_talk:Bgwhite#Sri_lanka_Press_Polls] User User:Obi2canibe later got involved in the dispute and removed my contributions that was properly sourced and cited. I attempted to resolve this issue by asking here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Removal_of_content_by_another_editor I added my material back in, and left messages on the comments section as here User_talk:Obi2canibe#Conduct_section and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_presidential_election,_2015 I received no response and other user reverted my work. As I originally added the work, I reverted his edit and advised him to add his contribution and to discuss his objection to my material in the talk section. This revert caused Admin [User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite] issue be with a block [[37]] The admin used profanity against me and was clearly involved in the dispute. see here [[38]] Have you tried to resolve this previously? After reviewing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship I am right now making a request for comments at the dispute resolution center for consideration of referring the admin to the arbitration committee. How do you think we can help? I make a request for comments for consideration of referring the admin to the arbitration committee. Summary of dispute by Bgwhite Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sri Lankan presidential_election,_2015 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.