Revision as of 16:40, 10 December 2014

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

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 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb

With only two of the participants offering to take part, and both seem to be on the same side, DRN will unfortunately be little or no use in this situation. However, this close is without prejudice to being restarted at a later date, to give people another opportunity to participate. If either of the two who have not commented here wish to take part, drop me a note and I will reopen. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pep Guardiola

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pep Guardiola (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)
• RangerRichard‎ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor user:RangerRichard‎ made a series of edits to the subject's article all pushing his Catalan background. He then added the region to the subject's infobox. I removed the last and only the last. That started badgering, harassment and what I would consider personal attacks, the last of which was stating that I have WP:OWNership of the article. I warned the editor for the last and he took first back to my talk page then to the subject's talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the subject's talk page, where it should not have been posted, and on RangerRichard‎'s talk page.

How do you think we can help?

It's not clear, perhaps clarifying the situation at both the subject article and explaining WP:NPA and harassment to the editor or telling me why I'm wrong on either or both issues.

The copy has been removed as a result of an ANI dispute, but I suspect that this will not be the end of the interactions. Since the other editor has not responded, I'll raise the issue here if anything more comes of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RangerRichard‎

It should be noted as an initial matter that User:Walter Görlitz has very helpfully opened up the question on WikiProject_Spain#Catalan_nationalism_on_Talk:Pep_Guardiola.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Catalan_nationalism_on_Talk:Pep_Guardiola.3F. Nothing appears on the former, but there are several comments from several users on the latter. The substance of the dispute is laid on this second talk page and at Talk:Pep Guardiola

I have never been in such a dispute before, except regard to this very issue with User:Walter Görlitz, so I am a bit confused as to the purpose of this forum. It is the case the copy from the Talk:Pep Guardiola page to which User:Walter Görlitz has objected has been removed. Our discussions, back and forth, have been robust. Though I understand the nature of his former complaint (which was on the same substantive matter), I am unaware of any continuing objections he has except to the very fact of the conflict itself. I would be happy to address anything additional not discussed to date which Walter believes requires our attention.

Meantime, at the risk of turning the tables, I would like to ask Walter in this forum that he stop telling folks about my supposed "Catalan" background or my interest and support for "Catalan nationalism." I am a park ranger from Alaska, a native-born U.S. citizen of wholly non-Spanish, non-Catalan descent, going back to the time my ancestors arrived here in 1680 from England. I could not live in a place less Catalan, nor could I live a life which is less Mediterranean. From my first edit, Walter assumed (I don't know why-- really, I don't why) that I was a "Catalan nationalist" who was "pushing an unacceptable POV" (I had to look up what that meant). Really, as it turns out, I'm just an Alaskan interested in language and geography. I have told him this from the start, but he repeats this odd claim about me all the same. I find it offensive, obviously, but even more than that just strange, and wish he would stop.

As to the article, we have stumbled over when and how sub-national units should be portrayed on Pep Guardiola. I believe the subject's hometown, being unknown, calls out for treatment appropriate to any town in North America-- by adding a second-order geopolitical unit to the infobox, so folks know at a glance whereabouts it is. Here, Guardiola's hometown is Santpedor, a relatively unknown small town in (the autonomous community of) Catalonia. Obviously it were Saskatoon or Seattle, the infobox would by contrast immediately show the name of province or state. That's what I think "consistency" should mean, but obviously Walter disagrees. Though Walter sees strident and "unacceptable" nationalism here, I just see practical geography of the most ordinary (and somewhat boring) sort. RangerRichard (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pep Guardiola discussion

Adminstrative note: Welcome User:Walter_Görlitz 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|Pep Guardiola (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 verifying that you have read this message and have notified all parties on their user talk page. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. You can mark it up this way as well {{subst:drn-notice|Pep Guardiola}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, Walter, and thanks for that HTML tip. Very handy.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: To both editors @Gorlitz and @Ranger; It would be useful if either one of you could post the disputed sentence(s) here in order that a potential volunteer can evaluate them and decide about possible moderation. @TransporterMan: Neither editor has responded in the last 4 days and if neither responds within the next 24 hrs, then @TransporterMan in justified to assess this matter as stale and subject to being closed. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This case needs a DRN volunteer to moderate the discussion. I'll post a note on the DRN talk page also.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Opened by Volunteer - I'm still reading the relevant material and will come back with comments/questions in about half an hour to an hour.SPACKlick (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz:, @RangerRichard:. Ok so I've read the talk pages, the ANI thread and everything I could find on this dispute. I would like to separate the content dispute from the ongoing dispute slightly to say that while I have an opinion on what the relevant outcome is for the Article I think the process is more important here.

To address Walters "How we can help section". I don't think you should be pointing to strongly at NPA and Harassment, people in glass houses and all that. There has been some poor form on both sides but hopefully we can get past it.

The actual dispute, over whether it is appropriate to add a midrange unit between a small town and a country, is a relatively simple one. The argument for (loosely) is that most people, on reading the article are not informed by reading Santpedor whereas they get more information from Catalonia, Santpedor. The argument against seems to be that it's not standard practice to do that. This sort of dispute is particularly amenable to RFC with outside editors. Consensus can effectively be formed by vote because the balance is More information vs infobox clutter which is a common dispute across the whole project.

If you would like further discussion of behaviours here please let me know. SPACKlick (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the subject itself will only be resolved if it is taken to an RfC.

That's not the issue for the dispute resolution though. It's when the editor intentionally makes false claims. An example is where I comment on the editor using insufferable rhetoric and when the editor responded, the claim is made that I stated that I called the editor insufferable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Now you are straying into behavioral issues which is not under the purvey of DRN. If the decision is to go for an RfC than we should probably close this case. Does anyone object?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Himarë#Regarding the removal of the established consensual text in the lead

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Himarë#Regarding the removal of the established consensual text in the lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gjirokastra15 (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Article about Himara is having in the lead the assertion that  :``The region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community`` , yet the 2011 census was showing the ethnic composition of 60.50 % albanians and 25% greeks in that region . As per wp:lede the phrase that that area is predominantly populated by Greeks could not be put there because the census does show the exact opposite . Thus the best solution was to include both of them in the lead ... and thus a consensus was established to include both of them . Yet user Athenean on a wp:idontlikeit basis decided to remove it (only the 2011 census) using the 3RR card and refused to discuss.

I ask that either all the phrases talking about demographic majorities or minorities get removed from the lead , or the 2011 census results should stay on the lead too .

P.S I first opened a dispute in A.N.I yet someone pointed that this might be a better place for such a dispute . Here is the link for whomever wants to see what has been already written in that dispute : https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_referenced_established_assertions_per_wp:idontlikeit_.2C_and_even_refusal_to_discuss

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion , yet user Athenean refused to discuss further

How do you think we can help?

Restore established referenced assertion as per consensus .

Summary of dispute by Athenean

User:Gjirokastra15 wants to have a discussion of the ethnic demographics in the lede of the article, which I find WP:UNDUE and totally against WP:LEDE. That Himara is predominantly inhabited by ethnic Greeks is well-supported by reliable sources, as shown in the article. The Greek character of the region is also part of the notability of the region, as evidenced by the unique Greek dialect spoken by the inhabitants of the region (Himariote Greek dialect), as well as a history of conflict going back centuries, continuing to the present day (Death of Aristotelis Goumas). Thus, I think mentioning that Himara is primarily inhabited by ethnic Greeks is both well-sourced and lede-worthy. On the other hand, the 2011 census, which is discussed in the demographics section, was marred by irregularities and a boycott by the ethnic minorities, following threats by the Albanian government . You will also note that in the numbers provided by the Gjirokastra15, there is a missing 15%. Following the official census, the Greek minority in Albania conducted its own census, showing approcimately 200,000 ethnic Greeks in Albania, which sharply contradicts the official census. This conclusively shows that there is something fishy with the census results, and as such it is not a reliable source. In any case, the place to discuss this is in Demographics of Albania, not the lede of this article. The census issue is moreover already discussed in the Himara's demographics section. The fact that Gjirokastra15 wants this mentioned as prominently as possible in the lede I consider POV-pushing. Athenean (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

I need to note that during the discussion Gjirokastra couldn't understand some basic points, for example here claims that the given references don't verify the fact that the census was boycotted, although this is verbally taken from the inline reference (Tirana times). I can only assume that this wasn't checked.

According to the introductory part there are serious wp:undue issues, in order to make a point. I simply suggest to follow wp:lede and avoid wp:undue. In general the detailed results of a census are not part of the lede, especially if this is disputed and the results were affected by bocoytt. Alexikoua (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Himarë#Regarding the removal of the established consensual text in the lead discussion

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: 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|Himarë} - ~~~~ 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) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Done , thank you for letting me know . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there are some assertions that need clarification :

The 2011 census results is being used by the CIA world fact book , in fact all of the demographic statistics ( on the CIA webpage ) regarding Albania are based on the 2011 census results , the 2011 census was funded and assisted by the EU , and the methodology was based on the Eurostat and UN recommendations for the 2010 Round of Population and Housing Censuses. As per wp:burden you have to prove that it was boycotted , and those 2 articles do not meet the minimum requirements . If such indeed would had been the case , we would have had a minimal reaction from the EU , and the human rights organizations . Yet you will find none , and in fact i challenge you to do so and i will rest my case . The missing 15 % of the population did simply not declare ethnicity , because it was not obligatory to do so , and in fact an Albanian nationalistic party did initiate a campaign to make the population not declare ethnicity , because according to them it was a threat towards Albania's territorial integrity

In addition , for the 2011 local elections the 2 political parties representing the Greek minority in the area of himara did get a 26 % of the total votes , while the 74 % did go for the Albanian parties . A really big coincidence and a perfect match up with the 2011 census results , don't you think ?

As for the so called census of the Omonoia , it was conducted ONLINE and was including the whole ethnic diaspora including the one that lives today in Greece , and all over the world and this is according to THEIR WORDS . So please next time try to interpret the right way the so called Omonoia census results as i see no conflict whatsoever here .

It is true that a great minority of the population in Himara is of Greek origins and they declare themselves an ethnic minority , however as also shown by the 2011 census , they are not on those numerical quantities for claiming that the area is predominantly greek , and it has never been recognized as a minority zone The area was not part of a "minority zone" in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania (1945-1991) , and continues to not to be , simply because the majority there are Albanians .

So either that goes as well , or the census results will be published as well . In fact the text before getting reverted by you was word per word

The text: Secondary sources generally accept that the region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community. The area was not part of a "minority zone" in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania (1945-1991) and still is not part of a so-called "minority zone". The latest census in the country (2011), which has been widely disputed due to irregularities in the procedure, as well as affected by boycott, counted 60.38% Albanians and 24.56% Greeks in the area.

Gjirokastra15 (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

To make myself even more understood i am categorically against any pov-pushing text in the lede of that article . But since there is one already there and you refuse to remove it , then the next logical choice is to write both sides of the story in the lede , especially when you have a text which is having as sources 4 sources , of which 1 is not working and 1 is from 1993 . And even more when the census results show the exact opposite . Given that , my opinion is that both should go , or both sides of the stories should remain . I absolutely fail to see why your sources merit to remain in the lede , and the factual census result should not ? That's the perfect example of double standards , at least that's how i see it without excluding the option that i might be wrong .Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: @Athenean (talk · contribs) and @Alexikoua (talk · contribs); @Gjirokastra15 has identified the version of one preferred form for the proposed edit currently in bold above, and it would be useful for a potential volunteer to see what version you are putting forward in its place. If you can post your version of the edit, then a volunteer here can evaluate it and possibly consider volunteering for this mediation. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Although all are welcome to comment here....if your not sure whats going on best not to jump in all over - it will break up the flow of whats going on. As has been explained above and can be seen in the edit history....the text above is the disputed addition/removal.... not a change. Glad to see any help....but sometimes best to not get involved all over or do some self investigation prior to commenting. Most would start at Talk:Himarë in this case. -- Moxy (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Asking for a summary or clarification of the issues in a dispute is a well-established and more than acceptable technique of mediation, Moxy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

You are correct but asking the same thing on every thread here is not helpfull overall. That was the point....asking for clarifiaction with no intent to followup. -- Moxy (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Note the ANI cited by the filing party at the time of filing has been archived here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This case is now open

User:Gjirokastra15, User:Athenean, User:Alexikoua are you ready to begin a moderated discussion?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sial tribe#Syal_caste_is_found_in_Jats.2C_Khatris_and_Rajputs.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sial tribe#Syal caste is found in Jats.2C Khatris and Rajputs. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• |]] (|talk]] · |contribs]])

Dispute overview

Syal caste is found in Khatris, Jats and Rajputs. Despite of many references, is resisting any changes. Also he do not have any reference to prove otherwise.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lots of discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Please involve other editors. Please look into the references provided and request (who is currently involved in editing the article) to allow the changes. PS: I also dont believe in Dahiya articles or very old articles. Ego conflict must not be teh problem in correction of the article.

Summary of dispute by

• The usual caste puffery based on the usual dodgy sources. The same arguments are trotted out across hundreds of caste articles and they are always rejected, not just by me. Some of those sources have been rejected in discussions at RSN, ANI etc and , I think, there are some past instances of this even at DRN. Do we really have to go through this yet again? Unfortunately, what usually happens is that WP:GS/Caste ends up being enforced on those who are attempting to puff. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• An indication of the difficulties inherent in using Raj sources can be found in the biographical articles for James Tod and H. H. Risley, which I think are the two most developed articles we have that relate to the typical "ethnographer" of the British colonial era in India. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sial tribe#Syal_caste_is_found_in_Jats.2C_Khatris_and_Rajputs. discussion

Comment from uninvolved editor; @IP editor, it would be helpful if you could list your eight references here below, and number them, which are being disputed as WP:RS. This would assist a possible volunteer to see if they can offer to moderate. Although it is not required in any way, you might want to consider the possibility of opening a regular user account which might make it easier for any volunteer to contact you if someone offers to moderate this discussion. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The editor #2 is right. The Raj sources cannot be used to settle caste and sect disputes. Risley et.al. must be used only by experts. The authentic native expert sources, eg. J.N Bhattopadhyaya 1896, Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste ... have this caste Sial (Syal, Seal, Sheel, Sil etc.) as superior Baniyas - artisan moneylenders. The current article is shallow and incoherent, and can be safely deleted.

Additional Comment, the editor #1 is correct to the extent that all the tribes of North India listed by him - Khatri, Jat, Rajput would have a Sial caste for goldsmithy, traditional banking etc. Indohispano (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor; @TransporterMan, the opening @IP editor has not responded since before 6Dec to provide the list of cites questioned as WP:RS. If @IP editor does not provide some response in 24 hours, then this matter may be seen as stale and it may be closed in 24 hours on this basis. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This case is now open

User:Sitush and IP:14.139.128.14 are you both ready to begin the moderated discussion?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If I must :( Would it not be simpler just to link to, say, a past RSN outcome regarding Raj sources and close it? - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As the IP:14.139.128.14 was using Government of India computer resources for private purposes unconnected to his employment, a formal complaint was promptly lodged to his institution against recurring misuse of the National Knowledge Network on Misplaced Pages, and it is very likely that the IP editor will be located, charge-sheeted and a disciplinary inquiry conducted. The offence is punishable with up to life imprisonment in India if done by a public servant. 122.162.12.23 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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/search/?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 "Misplaced Pages: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

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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

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: , , , (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:

2. The current article is pretty NPOV and by Misplaced Pages'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.

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

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)

Comment by My very best wishes

There is no such thing as "pro-Russian view". I think main question here (and on many other pages) is this: would we like to exclude conspiracy theorists and well-known propaganda outlets, such as RT (TV network), from the list of sources we are using, except in articles about the propaganda outlets themselves? Yes, we must exclude them - per policy, rather than be looking for a middle ground between them. Doing so is contrary to WP:NPOV. Vladimir Bukovsky once noted the middle ground between the Big Lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth is a lie, and one should not be looking for a middle ground between disinformation and information. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and Misplaced Pages: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:

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)

Comment from uninvolved editor; @Guy Macon; There appears to be an open RfC on this here 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)

Comment from uninvolved editor; @TranporterMan or @Keithbob; Since the RfC is not active for over 16 days, 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) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kings of_Judah#Synchronism_material_on_the_last_kings_of_Judah_vs._kings_of_Babylon

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 Misplaced Pages.

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: — 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIII

Pretty much what I had to say here: . 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 Misplaced Pages articles. This digram is in violation of WP:OR & WP:NPOV. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jeffro77

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

@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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is for. His choice of position constitutes original research - and here she is definitely wrong. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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)

2014 Armenian Mil Mi-24 shootdown

Premature. DRN like all other moderated content dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking help and discussion only in edit summaries is not sufficient to satisfy this prerequisite. Please discuss on the article talk page and if no resolution can be achieved through thorough collegial discussion, then seek dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Eeekster/Archives/2014/December#Fair_use

Pending in other forum (WP:UNDELETE) and even if it weren't already pending there, deletion and, ordinarily, copyright matters are not within the purview of this noticeboard since they have their own dispute resolution processes, of which WP:UNDELETE is one, followed by WP:DRV if that's unsuccessful. Conduct matters are entirely not within the purview of this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution