Close as failed. Editors could not come to consensus in over one week after good faith discussions. See closing comments for closing status. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:46, 22 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.
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.
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).
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: [2]. 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'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)
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)
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:
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 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
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 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: [3]. 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.
@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)
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
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: [5]
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[6] — 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[7]; that 587 is the correct year for 'dissolving the monarchy of Judah'[8]; that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605 BC[9]; 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; 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; 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)[1][2]. 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[3]: 20 in the summer of the 17th year of Nabopolassar was recorded on tablet BM 21901[4] and has been linked[5]: 12–19 [6]: 416 [7]: 108 [8]: 180 to the biblical battle of Megiddo[9][10] and the death of Josiah[11] (usually dated to Sivan[5]: 18 [6]: 418 [7]: 108 [12] or early Tammuz[7]: 108 [8]: 181 609 BC), the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (while Necho II was engaged in fighting for[13]: 43 [14][15]: 184 Assyrians)[8]: 181–182 [3]: 32 and the subsequent installment of Jehoiakim (placed either before[6]: 419 or after[8]: 181–182 Tishri 1, 609 BC);
the battle of Carchemish in the spring or summer of Nabopolassar's 21st year mentioned on tablet BM 21946[16] took place around Sivan[17]: 25 [18]: 226 605 BC and was identified as the event spoken of in the book of Jeremiah 46:2[17]: 24 [18]: 226 [5]: 20 [19]: 290 while the subsequent conquest of Syro-Palestine by Babylonians has been associated with the siege of Jerusalem described in Daniel 1:1[15]: 190 [13]: 66–67 [8]: 182ff. [17]: 26 which in turn enabled scholars to synchronize a number of events recorded only in the Hebrew Scriptures[20][21][22];
the above mentioned tablet BM 21946 speaks of a military campaign in Syro-Palestine during Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year[23], seizing the city of Yaahudu[17]: 72 on Adar 2 (dated to March 15/16 - evening to evening -, 597 BC)[17]: 33 , 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[17]: 34 [8]: 190 which deals with a siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians (a few months after the death of Jehoiakim)[24], the ensuing deportation of Jehoiachin and the installment of Zedekiah sometime around Nisan 1[25];
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[26]
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)[27]; this information was in turn used to date king Jehoiachin's release from prison on April 3 (Adar 27), 561 BC[28].
No chronicles recording military activities of Nebuchadnezzar during 593 - 562 BC exist except for tablet BM 33041[29] 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[30][31][32]. Due to this scarcity of extrabiblical sources one of the most important dates in Jewish history relating to the destruction of Jerusalem[33][34] is a matter of debate with some scholars favouring 587 BC[35][36] while others opting for 586 BC[37][38]. Neither view seems to be a majority[39]: 21 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;
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[39]: 21–38 .
^ abLipschitz, Oded[in German] (2005). The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah Under Babylonian Rule. Eisenbrauns. (After the month of Ululu 609 BC there is no mention of Assyria or its last king, Ashur-uballit II, in Babylonian records)
^ abcClines, David J. A. (1998). On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998. A&C Black.
^ abcGalil, Gershon (1996). The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. BRILL.
^ abcdefThiele, Edwin R. (1970). The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Kregel Academic.
^Kalimi, Isaac (2005). The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Eisenbrauns. p. 90. (Discussing 2 Chronicles 35:20 in the context of BM 21901)
^Reference to 2 Kings 23:29 in the context of BM 21901: Thiele 1970, p. 180; Kalimi 2005, p. 90.
^Placing 2 Kings 22:1 and 2 Chronicles 34:1 in the context of events described in BM 21901: Thiele 1970, p. 180.
^Kahn, Dan'el. "Revisiting the Date of King Josiah's Death" in: Alejandro F. Botta (Ed.) (2013). In the Shadow of Bezalel. Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. BRILL. p. 264.
^ abKitchen, Kenneth Anderson (2003). On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. (The phrase "went up against Assyria" in 2 Kings 23:29 presented as a mistranslation of the intended "went up to [help] Assyria")
^Carmy, Shalom (1996). Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 86. (A possible interchange of ῾al with ᾽el evidenced by comparing 2 Kings 18:27 with Isaiah 36:12)
^ ab
Jones, Floyd Nolen (2005). Chronology of the Old Testament. New Leaf Publishing Group. (An example of the opposing view regarding H5921. However, Jones' claim that the Hebrew word על listed in the Strong's Concordance as number 5921 was never translated as "to" in the New American Standard Version is incorrect, e.g. H5921 in Genesis 38:12 was translated as "to" in NAS and similarly in 1 Chronicles 12:23).
^Malamat, Abraham (2001). History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. BRILL.
^Stefanovic, Zdravko (2007). Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Pacific Press Publishing. pp. 45–46. (Daniel 1:1 is using the accession system to refer to the 3rd year of Jehoiakim which was his 4th year according to the non-accession year system applied by Jeremiah 25:1. A similar synchronism can be observed in Thiele 1970, p. 182)
^Jeremiach 25:1 referring to the 4th year of Jehoiakim (using a Tishri-based non-accession year system or a Nisan-based accession year system) was identified as the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar: Tadmor 1956, p. 226; Lipschitz 2005, pp. 39, 45; Clines 1998, p. 399; Thiele 1970, pp 181 ff.
^The accession year of Nebuchadnezzar according to the Babylonian reckoning is equated with his 1st year based on Jeremiah 25:1 using the non-accession method: Clines 1998, p. 399.
^Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year according to 2 Kings 24:12 (non-accession year reckoning) is equated with his 7th year according to BM 21946 and Jeremiah 52:28 (accession year reckoning) in Clines 1998, p. 399. Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year is synchronised with the accession of Zedekiah on the basis of 2 Kings 24:12 (Tadmor 1956, p. 226).
^Some claim Zedekiah had already been in office for almost a month on Nisan 1, 597 BC (Thompson, John Arthur (1980). The Book of Jeremiah. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 729.) while others argue his installment took place after Nisan 15 (Hayes, John H. (2007). A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and Its Implications for Biblical History and Literature. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 95. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)). Similarly, Thiele had to date Jehoiachin's exile as having started after Nisan 10, 597 BC due to a problem posed by the synchronism recorded in Ezekiel 40:1 and placed the installment of Zedekiah before Nisan 1 to allow for the accession year in a Nisan-based accession year system supposedly used by Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Thiele 1970, p. 192). The exact date is not known.
^Pritchard, James Bennett (2011). The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton University Press. pp. 274–275. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^The event described in 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 and dated to the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile was synchronized with the accession year of Amel-Marduk (Thiele 1970, pp. 189-190; Longman, III, Tremper (2012). Jeremiah, Lamentations (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series). Baker Books. p. 475. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), Tadmor 1956, p. 226).
^Lundbom, Jack R. (2004). Jeremiah 37-52. Doubleday. p. 208.
^Lipiński, Edward (2006). On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches. Peeters Publishers. p. 198.
^This saying of Ezekiel was dated to 1 Nisan (26 April) 571 BC on the assumption that Jehoiachin went to his exile after Nisan 1, 597 BC (Thiele 1970, p. 189; Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2012). Ezekiel. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 127.). If Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon before Nisan 1 this saying should be dated a year earlier, i.e. to 1 Nisan (8 April) 572 BC.
^Apart from primary sources mentioned in other references, Jeremiah 39:2 and 52:5-6 were also taken into account (Thiele 1970, pp. 190, 192; Bright 2000, p. 330).
^The year preceding the fall of Jerusalem was Zedekiah's 10th year and has been synchronized with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah applying in this case the non-accession year system to report Nebuchadnezzar's years acc. Clines 1998, p. 399) on the basis of Jeremiah 32:1 (Thiele 1970, p. 190; Tadmor 1956, p. 226). According to 2 Kings 25:1-9 and Jeremiah 52:12 the 11th year of Zedekiah was the year of the fall of Jerusalem and overlapped with Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (Thiele 1970, p. 190; Tadmor 1956, p. 226). Clines interpreted the 19th year of the Babylonian king in Jeremiah 52:12 as reckoned by the non-accession year system and equated it with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar as recorded in Jeremiah 52:29 using the accession year reckoning (Clines 1998, p. 399).
^Bright, John (2000). A History of Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 330.
^The exact dates were calculated on the basis of 2 Kings 25:2-3.8 and Jeremiah 52:12 as follows: the fall of Jerusalem on Tammuz 9 (= July 29) 587 BC and the destruction of the city on Av 7 (= August 25) 587 BC (Horn 1967, p. 22).
^The exact dates were calculated on the basis of 2 Kings 25:2-3.8 and Jeremiah 52:12 as follows: the fall of Jerusalem on Tammuz 9 (= July 18) 586 BC and the destruction of the city on Av 7 (= August 14) 586 BC (Horn 1967, p. 22).
^Various years of Jehoiachin's exile were synchronized with corresponding years counted from the destruction of Jerusalem and with some regnal years of Zedekiah:
Tevet 10, the 9th year of the exile (Ezekiel 24:1-2) was equated with Tevet 10, the 9th year of Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:1, Jeremiah 39:1; 52:4) in Thiele 1970, p. 190 (dated to 15 January 588 BC with the accession year system in mind and assuming the beginning of exile after Nisan 1, 597 BC; applying the non-accession year system to the reign of Zedekiah or assuming the beginning or the exile prior to Nisan 1, 597 BC the event has to be dated a year earlier as in Young 2004, p. 32, the precise date being December 28, 590 BC);
Tevet 5, the 12th year of the exile (Ezekiel 33:21) was placed in the same lunar year as the fall of Jerusalem in Thiele 1970, p. 191 (dated to 8 January 585 BC on the assumption that Jehoiachin's captivity began after Nisan 1, 597 BC as in Thiele 1970, p. 192; if Jehoiachin went to his exile before Nisan 1, 597 BC the report in Ezekiel 33:21 has to be redated to January 19, 586 BC as in Zimmerli, Walther (1983). Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Vol. 2. Fortress Press. p. 193.);
Nisan 10, the 25th year of the exile (Ezekiel 40:1) was synchronised with the 14th year after the fall of Jerusalem in Thiele 1970, pp. 191-192 (dated to 28 April 573 BC on the assumption that Jehoiachin's captivity began after Nisan 1, 597 BC as in Thiele 1970, p. 192; if Jehoiachin went to his exile before Nisan 1, 597 BC the passage in Ezekiel 40:1 has to be redated to April 10, 574 BC as in Klein, Ralph W. (1988). Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message. University of South Carolina Press. p. 5.).
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.[10] 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)
@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.
In the absence of explicit secondary sources, asserting that Jehoiakim must have died before Tishri is original research. He could have died before Tishri, or the last couple of months of his reign could have been rounded off, or it could simply be an error. If sources present any of those scenarios then they should be included, otherwise, they should not.
If other editors are happy with the sources for the chart, I have no objection to including it at Babylonian captivity and the two Siege of Jerusalem articles. If it is to be included at History of ancient Israel and Judah, the relevant sections of the article may need some corresponding expansion. (The two relevant sections currently discuss overlapping periods of time, which should probably also be addressed.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
View and comments by Mark Miller
Hi, I'm Mark Miller, an old timer here at DRN. Been away a while but this caught my eye and I thought I would take a moment to weigh in.
The dispute seems to come down to a chart that was removed from the article Kings of Judah as being original research. First, let me say that I never really like to see a discussion at DRN of the general subject. It can cloud the discussion. Too much debate on what is or is not accurate on the chart should be held elsewhere. What should be discussed is where the content comes from and whether it represents the subject fairly and in an encyclopedic manner.
The main concern here is policy. In this case, specifically: Wikipedia:Image use policy. Here we are given Wikipedia policy which states: "Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license.." and "Such images can include photographs which you yourself took",. This has always been taken to mean that user graphics, technical drawing and other artwork, including portraits and reconstruction etc. are acceptable to use on Wikipedia. So the issue of this being made by an editor is not an issue at all in itself. The next concern is how the diagram is created, whether or not the chart's information comes from mainstream academic sources and if the graphic represents the content of those sources fairly and accurately. Even before all that there may be major concerns over how much content to see in a chart, the way the chart is made, what it looks like in thumbnail etc. Then we are concerned with the consensus of editors, who supports the chart and who opposes the it.
I have read through the dispute on the talk page and the dispute here and am convinced this request was incorrectly accepted. If you look at the dispute there is only one editor supporting the use of the chart so there is no need for any discussion on the merits or points of any content here. One editor does not a dispute make. The only editor that has not added to the discussion here is the original editor that removed the chart [11]. All others above have expressed opposition to inclusion except for filing editor. Since the volunteer is clearly new to Wikipedia this good faith mistake is easily understandable. I was originally attracted to this because of my interest in genealogy, heraldry and history of kings (even biblical kings. Kings tend to see their reign as ordained by god) but clearly the discussion has gone on far longer than should have been allowed. Clearly, after much discussion, none of the participants have changed their mind on the use of the chart on the article. A dispute is where no consensus can be reached. Clearly there is a rough consensus of several editors who all agree except for the author of the diagram. Bringing this was the right move. Accepting the case was controversial but not without precedence for the volunteer as I have done so myself, but only because the case was contentious and I wanted the single hold out who brought the case to see why the dispute was not on their side and in case others wanted to give in and join the discussion. That was not actually the case here. Only one editor did not weigh in that was pinged. A new volunteer here is likely to see that as enough participants to begin and may not have fully realized that there was truly a consensus already in place at the article, but that the charts author was hoping to change that consensus. Consensus can change...it just didn't in this case. I believe this case should be closed as "Consensus is to exclude chart in article". Lisa's last comment made it clear they felt the chart was not acceptable to use and while JudeccaXIII bowed out of the discussion, they as well maintained their opposition to inclusion. the last editor to continue discussing is Jeffro77 and the chart cannot have a consensus for inclusion between just these two editors. The discussion has now turned to refining and adjusting the chart, but the consensus has not changed.
A note to Apologist en, the chart, regardless of the content or information is far too complex, too busy and too detailed to have EV (encyclopedic value). Charts are to be used to enhance one's understanding of the topic at a glance or a little more than a glance. it should take a complicated text explanation and condense it to a visually appealing and easily understood graphic. In the case of genealogy and history hierarchy charts, information should be as specific and distilled as possible. Even then, with a beautiful presentation and accurate, sourced information....consensus still determines inclusion and trying to change that consensus after a reasonable amount of time just becomes filibustering. Try to work on the chart some more and perhaps take some tips as suggested but for now, the consensus of editors is to exclude the chart. Thank you for your efforts and keep up the good work.
@Apologist en; @Jeffro77 has indicated another page (Babylonian captivity) for your edits in the main body of another article. Note that several editors seem to feel that your edits look stronger when you first develop them in the main body of the article first. Could you identify which one of your eight highlighted points is of the highest priority to you as something lacking in the current article. Comment to @Mark Miller; @Apologist appears to have acknowledged that several editors were concerned about (a) the facts in the diagram and (b) the diagram itself; and @Apologist has spent some time in presenting reliable sources in his list of 8 highlighted points with references for (a) the facts in the diagram. Are you criticizing both of these together or the diagram alone (short answer is fine). Also I have marked your request for summary evaluation above for the current co-ordinator. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not hat comments. Since everyone is welcome to join the discussion there is no reason for the hatting here. If you feel something requires or needs discussion, that is fine, but we are expected to use the talk page. If you are objecting to my commenting, I don't know why. If you are objecting to my call to close, that I can understand however, DRN is not a venue for refining the content if the consensus of editors, both here and on the talk page, has not changed. Once editors begin bowing out, you cannot continue a DRN to refine the content, already excluded by the participants. This should probably be kicked back to the talk page now where further discussion can take place as to whether and if changes to the chart could improve it enough to be used on other articles. I apologize if I seem like I am stepping on your toes Felix. We need to be able to read when the dispute has either ended or a consensus has been reached and there is no indication that there exists any change in the original consensus of editors at the article talk page to exclude.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller; All others above have expressed opposition to inclusion except for filing editor. - imho, this is a textbook example of the Present Perfect Tense misapplication - unless the last comments made by @Jeffro77 and @JudeccaXIII are to be interpreted as "no consensus". Try to work on the chart some more - well, if you believe that some elements are reduntant in showing synchronisms between kings of Judah and Babylon just list them and explain your reasons. Then, if @Jeffro77 (the only person who has been actively involved in the discussion from the beginning) shares you concerns, I will either modify my diagram or decide not to work on it (there might not be much left to work on...). But before that I would like you to have a look at File:Roma_Plan.jpg which is used on some 29 Wikipedia pages and answer just one simple question: Do you really think my diagram is half that complex and full of details as this graphics is (cos you liked that map enough to work on it...)? Apologist en (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Really....attempting to turn this to be about me is unbecoming. Seriously. Don't make personal attacks and discussing my edits in this manner is, at the very least, borderline PA and has no basis for comparison since the map you are referring to is taken from a reliable source: "Droysens Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas" from 1886. there is no comparison to my changes to contrast, sharpness and other image issues that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the map itself. That argument is a distraction and a discussion of an editor in an inappropriate manner at DRN. If you cannot argue on the merits of your own work and must resort to criticizing or pointing to the edits of others who participate here, then you are not really attempting a good faith approach to this dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologist en, you have already been warned that it is entirely inappropriate to trawl for entirely unrelated images uploaded by editors with whom you're involved in a dispute, in an attempt to make invalid comparisons with your chart. But you've decided to do it again, this time to User:Mark Miller. Such action is retributive in nature, has absolutely no bearing on the merits of your chart, and is not likely to win you any favours. If this is the manner in which you are going to choose to 'discuss' article content, Wikipedia may be better off without you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems, unfortunately, that Apologist en's standard response to disagreement is to attack the person disagreeing personally. He has done so to Jeffro, to Mark Miller, and to me. For some reason, he seems to feel that not accepting the content he worked so hard on is a personal affront. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is, in my view. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You can continue to work on the diagram. However, a dispute is not resolved by waiting for everyone to simply lose interest here until the last holdout is convinced. That is not how a consensus is formed or a dispute is resolved. The chart can find a home with improvements. I believe this is what Jeffro77 is indicating but not that he agrees it is right for the article involved in this dispute. I believe the are truly trying to help you with the chart but not as part of a way to resolve this current dispute but help you as an editor. If I am incorrect and Jeffro77 is beginning to change their mind and are considering supporting the inclusion of the chart on the article: Kings of Judah then I truly hope they will correct me. But right now I see that the request is disintegrating and no longer has the full participation of the disputants.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch; Please close this discussion with whatever result seems most appropirate to you. I've had enough. Big thanks once again for your time and help! Apologist en (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I am leaving the close to the editor that mediated this case. I called for a close but they ultimately should make the decision and I am not willing to override them. I have given my take after being attracted to the filing because of my general interest of the subjects. I have read through the talk page, looked at the article and the chart and read through the case discussion here. In the long run it is only my opinion, the decision to remain open or closed should be that of FelixRosch (see DRN talk page).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I, for one, hope that Felix accepts your suggestion. I can't even imagine what would happen if we had a formal dispute every time a single editor didn't like a consensus that went against him. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Moving towards (20 Dec) consensus and close
To all editors; @Apologist en and @Mark Miller have voiced summary concerns which can be reflected concisely. @Apologist has been asked to accept that several editors would be more comfortable if @Apologist would provide more attention to development of the main body of the article together with his interest in charts and diagrams, and not one of these alone (charts only) to the exclusion of the other (text in main body of article). @Jeffro77 has even suggested several sibling pages for bringing in the reliable sources which @Apologist has provided WP:RS. Comment to @Apologist; The editors have provided several sibling pages for your edits; as a suggestion for your charts possibly if you could think of a way to simplify it to express those aspects which are most important to the article as a whole (such as the Synchronism part of Neb. alone, etc) then the other editors could be more receptive. If you place such a new version of the chart below then the editors would be able to provide a neutral comment to put you closer to having a consensus chart or diagram. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Some editors can edit and create charts quickly and some take a bit more time depending on the chart. I am not at all sure it is within the spirit of DRN to continue asking an editor to work on something, leading them to believe this is a venue and path towards inclusion of their content and work, especially when the exact cause for the exclusion is so complicated and is not a matter of a single piece of information but many factors and the continued consensus of editors has still not changed. Asking for changes to a chart this complicated can take time and be an extremely difficult thing to accomplish if frustrated. I think the best idea is to poll the editors with a straight up question in regards to inclusion to be answered as "Support" or "Oppose". The content can and should still be worked on and discussed but...none of the participants have changed their positions.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:01, 22 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.
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.
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)
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.
The discussion is proceeding nicely at the article talk page. Since DRN does not allow parallel discussions I'm closing this case. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 22 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.
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.
Summary of dispute by ErikHaugen
(disclosure: I used to work for Paypal, but after he left and I've never met him.)
I think the term "founder" has a clear definition, and it isn't met here. e.g. Paypal had a million users before Musk was involved: don't you think a typical reader will be mislead if we use the term "founder"? Musk was (AFIAK) a co-founder of the company that became Paypal Inc., although of course it had nothing to do with Paypal when it was founded. So we ought to say that he was the founder of Paypal, Inc., but I think maybe not of Paypal. A similar situation seems to be the case for Tesla. Just because a court says Tesla has to call him a founder doesn't make him a founder and doesn't mean we should use the term if we can verify that he in fact isn't. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
Comment from uninvolved user; There has been no update to this section in the last two (2) days. Unless the editors indicate an interest in pursuing resolution, then @Keithbob or @TransporterMan is justified to consider this dispute as inactive and close this resolution as being stale. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:11, 20 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.
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. See ANI or ARBCOM for conduct disputes. (Also, I believe that DRN is the wrong forum for deciding the underlying content matter here, the correct forum would be AfD using WP:BUNDLE, but as filed that is not relevant to this closing.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 23 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.
The creator of this article that is being considered for deletion has been creating many articles that all fall under the same category as this article. The editor has been asked to stop creating articles in this manner on her user talk page until a consensus can be reached by the community on what to do with these articles and if they should be kept on Wikipedia. However, the user ignores such requests and continues creating these articles, an ever increasing list that becomes more and more difficult to track should the community decide they should be deleted.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Repeatedly have asked editor Shevonsilva to halt creation of these types of articles until community consensus can be reached.
How do you think we can help?
Perhaps by promoting useful discussion from editors involved, especially the creator of these articles in order to stop the current vicious cycle.
Summary of dispute by Shevonsilva
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PamD
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Johnuniq
This is an important issue that I was thinking of raising at WP:ANI. On the one hand, it's simple and innocent; on the other hand there is a distinct possibility that junk is being put in articles based on a dubious source—junk that would be likely to hang around unchallenged for a long time if not dealt with now. The source is Other Systems of Units by François Cardarelli—it is likely that the vast bulk of the material in the source is excellent, but the book has several tables of obsolete units with throw-away claims about obscure units. I asked Shevonsilva on 19 December 2014 (here) whether there is any information in the source other than the one-line claims, but have not had a response. My view is that if an obscure unit is documented in a reliable source, that source should be used; if no good source is known (other than the book in question), the information should not appear in Wikipedia. It is likely that all the obscure units that should be here are at English units. To make it easier to get an overview, I have copied the wikitext from the articles under discussion to User:Johnuniq/sandbox3 (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit) 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.
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.
In the Vowels section of Received Pronunciation, Gairike has inserted a large table containing details of the phonetic characteristics of vowels of three varieties of RP. This is inadequately referenced and contains numerous faults, some of which I have pointed out. I am an expert on the phonetics of English of some 45 years' standing, but find it difficult to judge how much of this table is based on genuine published material. I deleted it, offering help to the person who produced it, but he has reinstated it with minor revisions.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Use of Talk page to explain my criticsms, to which Gairike did not respond (I suspect he did not know about the existence of Talk pages)
How do you think we can help?
Ask Gairike to explain exactly how he gathered the material to put in this table.
Summary of dispute by Gairike
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Received Pronunciation, New table added 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.
Premature. DRN like all moderated content dispute resolution at en-Wikipedia requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. What discussion there has been so far at the talk page has been almost entirely about the conduct/puppetry issues, not about the specific content issues in question. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 24 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.
Hello. I'd like the assistance of more experienced editors in resolving a simmering issue involving an article about myself that I authored, and was once the primary contributor to. That latter distinction is now held by user Wikigeek2, a self-admitted SPA whose purported goal is to provide balance to the article, but whom numerous admins have agreed has added or subtracted content in a negative manner designed to either slight, discredit, or embarrass me. We recently were involved in a protracted SPI with another user, Mhannigan; together, the three of us have been the only significant, substantive contributors to the article, and the behavioral similarity between the other two -- much further exemplified during the discussion phase of the investigation, I argued -- is what led me to initiate the SPI (which was adjudicated almost solely on the basis of the technical aspect of the inquiry, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that the accused sockmaster is an experienced network administrator).
However, I know this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, only content disputes, which is why I'm hoping that this step will avoid the need for escalation to the Arbitration Committee. There are several serious problems with the article as it stands now, and because of the seemingly endless contributions by the other two editors, I have not even bothered to delve into what would surely devolve into an edit war. Simply comparing the current state of the article to the original submission (which was roundly praised by editors participating in a discussion on the IRC help channel prior to publication), it should be clear that it has undertaken some wholly unnecessary, and in some cases completely inappropriate, changes.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion has occurred both on the Talk page and during a lengthy SPI involving the other two users mentioned here (whom I still strongly believe to be the same person, due to numerous behavioral similarities, some quite specific).
How do you think we can help?
i'm hoping that the input of a group of more experienced editors can help form a consensus on what is and is not appropriate material for inclusion in the article. Both inclusionary and exclusionary edits have been made that aim to minimize my cultural impact while maximizing any perceived controversy surrounding me.
Summary of dispute by Wikigeek2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mhannigan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Evan Blass 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.
Talk:Kosovo at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The parties have agreed on a resolution to the dispute. A sentence describing the conflict and why it is relevant to the games will be added to the article. --Biblioworm01:32, 25 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.
It is common when Kosovo is mentioned there be a footnote to say Kosovo is a disputed territory. This is in Kosovo Football and Judo articles. I have not placed all these footnotes. I had no part in creating the footnote. It is common to make people aware in all articles Kosovo is a disputed territory. Because Kosovo will participate in Olympics without any footnote it is said that on Wikipedia Olympics articles the footnote that Kosovo is disputed should be banned. I think it should be placed because Kosovo is disputed. Russia for example says Kosovo is participating in the Olympics as part of Serbia. So while it is competing its not competing as an independent nation to all participants. And Kosovo can't participate in all sports in the Olympics because it is disputed. So since I feel that is going to become an issue it just makes sense to include Kosovo is disputed footnote. I don't understand the controversy because its not fully able to participate in all sports.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Because Republic of Kosovo is an IOC member and not just Kosovo I tried to make the page Republic of Kosovo at the Olympics. That was not accepted because KOS is the IOC country code so that means to others that Kosovo must be the label of the page.
How do you think we can help?
Do sports articles, any sports articles, need the Kosovo is disputed footnote.
Summary of dispute by PjeterPeter
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I strongly agree with IJA. Since writing about Kosovo's Olympic participation, I've had multiple attacks by editors like Qwerty786, despite the fact that I advised them to discuss this issue before reverting my edits. It's very clear that the footnote is not necessary (as IJA mentions below), because it's used for articles where the status is disputed. The status is NOT disputed in these sport/Olympic-related pages because the International Olympic Committee has recognized the Kosovo as a whole independent nation. The examples of Puerto Rico and Hong Kong are irrelevant; they have permission by the U.S. and China. Kosovo is directly recognized by the IOC, so the footnote is unneeded because it's used when both countries (RS-KS) dispute it. Serbia can't dispute it because this is about Kosovo as a republic; and [Serbia] is in fact going to play against Kosovo, both as two equal countries. NO status needed; you are just politicizing pages, when at the end of the day, it's just about sports. I am deeply concerned by this political behavior of Qwerty786. --PjeterPeter (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by IJA
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Qwerty786 was blocked for edit warring. His aggressive attitude is not helpful. He isn't interested in the talk page or in building consensus. He is trying to politicise a sports article, his edits gave the article undue weight on the political elements to this sports article. He has unilaterally moved the article title without the proper WP:RM procedure or consensus. I think Qwerty786 needs to change his behaviour on Wikipedia or he'll find himself serving a much lengthier ban. The Kosovo note is non-binding as it is only a proposed Wikipedia Policy/ Guideline. The note isn't required as this isn't a political article and NPOV isn't being violated by referring to Kosovo as Kosovo, nor is NPOV being violated by saying that Kosovo will participate at the Olympics. The note violates WP:UNDUE as it gives undue weight to a political dispute on a sport article. We don't have a note on Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan competing at the Olympics do we? All of these are partially recognised. This whole dispute mediation is a waste of time as Qwerty786 is just doing this as he hasn't got his own way. IJA (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not talk about other editors on this page, IJA. The edit notice explicitly says that "This page is not the place to flame other users." Thank you. --Biblioworm23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Donikanuhiu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Once and for all, this is not about the political status of Kosovo. This is about the IOC's recognition of the Republic of Kosovo. Kosovo is going to participate as an independent nation, not as disputed territory. The footnote is IRRELEVANT. I really hope you can read that. Please read the use of Kosovo's footnote; this is about Kosovo as an independent country, not as a disputed territory. An independent country does NOT need a footnote. Why? Because the IOC has recognized Kosovo; meaning that Kosovo will play equally as every other nation, with its flag, anthem and athletes.
The footnote is used only WHEN both Serbia and Kosovo dispute the Republic of Kosovo. However, both Serbia and Russia [who supported Kosovo's membership] will play along Kosovo as independent countries; without a footnote. Is there going to be a footnote at the Olympics? No? Why? Because when you have a flag, an anthem and your athletes - there is no FOOTNOTE! --Donikanuhiu (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I'm Biblioworm, a volunteer here at the DRN. If all parties agree to participate in the case and make their statements, I'd be willing to help out here. Regards, --Biblioworm02:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Please don't ask a volunteer moderator to express an opinion. The function of the moderator is to help the editors with the content dispute to talk to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, since Kosovo is described as a "partially recognized" state, my personal opinion is that the disputed territory tags should stay. However, I do want to hear the opinions of those who think differently. --Biblioworm03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see this resolved. What is the wiki rule for adding Kosovo footnote in sports articles. Because maybe the footnote should be removed from all sports articles. Maybe it needs to be abolished altogether. Lots of IOC members dispute Kosovo independence but IJA and other are seeking a ban on Kosovo footnote. Is that right or wrong and if that is right I will remove Kosovo footnote from all sports articles. I also don't understand why IJA says Taiwan. There is no Taiwan in the Olympics. Qwerty786 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So, it seems to me that this dispute involves two viewpoints:
The true sovereignty of Kosovo is disputed, so the disputed territory tags should stay.
The tag is bringing unnecessary politics into a sports article.
Please read my statement; first of all, NO, this is not about the political status of Kosovo. Kosovo is recognized by 108 UN countries and is going to participate as an independent country. An independent country does not need a footnote. Nevertheless, the footnote (As mentioned above) is only used when both RS and KS dispute it. Serbia does NOT dispute it, because it's going to participate with Kosovo as two independent nations. Why so? First of all; bringing politics into these articles is just harm and absolutely, without a question, just unnecessary. And to answer your viewpoints: First of all; the true sovereignty of Kosovo is based on countries that have recognized it. So for example, since Germany has recognized it, there is no footnote needed because the sovereignty is guaranteed. SAME with the Olympics - the IOC has recognized Kosovo, so no footnote needed. You can also go to the official Olympic page and see that there is no footnote, and there is NONE is any website/media out there.
And Kosovo is unlike any other NOC. It's absolutely incomparable to Hong Kong or Chinese Taipei/Taiwan because both of these have the permission of China. Same with American Samoa and Puerto Rico - they have the permission of the United States. Kosovo is DIRECTLY recognized by the International Olympic Committee, without anyone's permission, meaning that its sovereignty is guaranteed. Please, stop this nonsense. --Donikanuhiu (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The note is directly harming the article by violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE by politicising a sports article. It isn't controversial or disputed by saying that Kosovo will be participating in the Olympics in 2016, it is an undisputed fact; it doesn't matter that some countries governments haven't recognised Kosovo as a state yet, Kosovo will still be participating. And to correct Qwerty786, there is a Taiwan in the Olympics under the name of Chinese Taipei per the Nagoya Resolution. Taiwan needed an agreement with PR China to participate in the Olympics, Kosovo was accepted as a member on its own accordance; Serbia's consent wasn't required for membership unlike Taiwan. If a note is needed, it is on Taiwan not Kosovo but then again that would be politicising a sports article and giving undue weight to the political elements. If we are to have a footnote on Kosovo, then we should have a footnote on all partially recognised countries (Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan); but that would be ridiculous as we'd be bringing unnecessary geopolitics into a sport articles. IJA (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. You make some good points, especially your point that we could not start slapping "disputed territory" tags on every nation that is not recognized by everyone. Now, I want to hear what @Qwerty786 has to say in reply to this. --Biblioworm16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
what about all the other sports articles that have the footnote. Read all Kosovo football articles. The footnote is in all of them because while Kosovo can participate in friendlys and other matches Serbia still disputes it. Yes Serbia will compete against Kosovo in the Olympics but does not recognize Kosovos independence for the purposes of the Olympics. Serbia will still say during rio that Kosovo is a part of Serbia it is just that it will have its own team. That is also the position of Russia and why Kosovo will not be Eligible for all sports. Serbia says it will never stop disputing Kosovo independence and participates in many things where Kosovo is also a member with status equal to Serbia but that does not mean Kosovo is not disputed. It does not unduly politicize an article to say a territory is disputed. Maybe the Kosovo footnote should be abolished altogether if it can't be used in sports articles. Qwerty786 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Kosovo can only play friendly football matches but I don't see what that has to do with the Olympics. As a matter of fact, Kosovo will be joining the Council of Europe very soon which will give Kosovo the automatic right to join UEFA therefore the Football Friendlies issue will be become irrelevant once UEFA membership is secured. Former User Whitewriter (Tadja prior to his name change) put that Kosovo note on every article which included the word "Kosovo". Just because Whitewriter slapped the note on football articles isn't a reason to politicise this article and put the note on this article. Serbia can say what it wants but that isn't a reason to politicise this Wikipedia article. Pakistan doesn't recognise Armenia, but that doesn't mean we should politicise Olympic articles related to Armenia. The Kosovo note exists for when mentioning Kosovo is a political context to maintain a NPOV. Saying that Kosovo is participating in the Olympics isn't violating NPOV just like it isn't violating a NPOV by saying that PR China or Palestine are participating nor is there a need to mention that their political status is disputed by other countries. IJA (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. There are good points on both sides. A few question for @IJA: How does this tag overly politicize the article and actually harm the readers? Some people feel that the more information, the better. Furthermore, isn't it important to note this, since Kosovo is apparently ineligible to participate in some sports? (According to Qwerty, that is.) --Biblioworm19:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course irrelevant information doesn't "harm" our readers. I wasn't aware that causing "harm" to our readers was the subject of this dispute, I thought it was to do with showing irrelevant political information to our readers on an article relating to sport. Yes, more information the better; the sky is blue, should we tell our readers this as well on our article? I wasn't aware that Kosovo was ineligible to participate in some sports. What I still haven't heard is why this note is apparently necessary. Ok, I understand and am fully aware that Kosovo isn't recognised by some countries and Serbia believes that Kosovo should be a province of Serbia, but what has that got to do with the Olympics? Kosovo is an equal member of the IOC, some members are sovereign states (like France), some members are territories (like Puerto Rico); what does the political status of Kosovo have to do with the Olympics? Why must our readers be informed this in a sporting context? When our readers are viewing this article, they'll be looking for information relating to Kosovo in the 2016 Olympics. Just like our readers who view the article "Armenia at the Olympics" will be looking for information about Armenia at the Olympics, notice how they aren't informed that Pakistan doesn't recognise Armenia? This is because it is irrelevant even though if we were to inform them, it wouldn't harm them. IJA (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
being in council of Europe doesn't mean Kosovo isn't disputed. Being in the Olympics doesn't mean Kosovo isn't disputed. Everything IJA brings up is true but it doesn't mean Kosovo isn't disputed. Kosovo is a disputed member of a lot of organizations. I thought this was more about Wikipedia than Olympics or council of Europe or whatever is being discussed. Pec or Peja. Kosovo football or Kosovo judo. So many articles make people aware Kosovo is disputed and it is not political just informational. Yes Kosovo is not a member of a number of sports bodies which mean it can't participate in such things as rowing, athletics, etc according to most recent info. Kosovo is going into rio disputed and that's just a fact of right now. Qwerty786 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the article "Kosovo at the 2016 Summer Olympics" is about the Olympics. I agree that Kosovo's status is disputed, I don't think that is disputed. But what I don't understand is how the political dispute is relevant to Kosovo participating at the Olympics. IJA (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
right now Kosovo is not part of IAAF. So no Kosovo athlete can compete in track and field. That's a big thing and exists because Kosovo is disputed. Rowing for example may not matter because Kosovo does not even have a big rowing program but track and field? Definitely but no one who qualifies can go to rio! That's why it must say kosovo is disputed because how is it going to be explained why no track and field athletes can go as of right now?Qwerty786 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
IOC membership automatically permits IAAF membership, Kosovo may not be a member as we speak but it will be soon, it is just a formality of accepting Kosovo's membership per IOC membership as it is with most sporting organisations. In the 2012 Olympics, the UK doesn't have FIFA or UEFA membership yet it was able to field a football team. IJA (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Seeing that Kosovo's disputed political status actually seems to be influencing its eligibility to participate in some sports, don't you think the tag might be somewhat important, so that readers can understand why this is happening? --Biblioworm03:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what you mean by, "It isn't affecting the 2016 Rio Olympics..."? From my understanding, it is affecting the Olympics, because it is supposedly preventing Kosovo from participating in sports that most widely recognized nations can. --Biblioworm04:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Kosovo can and will participate in any sport in the Olympics. I don't understanding what you're referring to. To qualify for Track and Field events, a national team must be a member of the IAAF which Kosovo isn't just yet; however IOC membership gives Kosovo the automatic right to IAAF membership so this is just a formality. I'm not sure when their next general meeting is, but it will occur rather soon when Kosovo will be admitted due to its IOC membership. The same applies to many other Sport Organisations. I'm not aware of Kosovo being prevented in any event in the Olympics. If an individual athlete fails to qualify, that is a different matter. The political status isn't preventing Kosovo, the lack of membership is preventing Kosovar athletes from qualifying; but IOC membership makes Kosovo eligible for membership in these organisations so that that Kosovar athletes can try and qualify. IJA (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I've still not heard why the note is required and why the political status is relevant for the 2016 Rio Olympics. IJA (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that myself. @Qwerty786: Could you please clearly and specifically explain why this politically based tag is relevant to an Olympics article? Clear explanations that do not avoid the main questions are likely to make this dispute easier to resolve, as it will help us address the root issues. --Biblioworm19:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
any lack of membership by kosovo at this point is because of its disputed status. You can't say that lack of membership is just a coincidence or Kosovo just hasn't gotten around to applying for it yet! It's all because of its disputed nature. I thought because of the judo articles and football articles it was common wiki practice to put the footnote in sports articles as well. It all had to do with when Kosovo is mentioned the footnote gets placed. If its wrong for the footnote to be in the football and judo articles then i will help remove the footnote from all sports articles.Qwerty786 (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok but Kosovo has membership in the IOC and you still haven't answered my question. How is this political dispute relevant to the 2016 Olympics? And like I said before, just because one user (who has now since left Wikipedia) decided to slap that note on every article which mentioned Kosovo, isn't a reason to slap it on this article. If you really really really want to mention the political dispute on the article, we can do so in a way which is relevant to the article content. I propose we add a sentence along the lines of "This will be Kosovo's first participation in the Olympics since gaining IOC membership in 2014, although Serbia protested Kosovo's admission to the IOC as Serbia officially claims Kosovo as its Southern Province, Serbia decided against boycotting the 2016 Rio Olympics. (reference)" This way we can mention the political dispute which you really want to mention on this article in such a way it is actually relevant to the article content. Also if we include such a sentence, the note won't be required as the content from the note will already be covered in the article proper. Would you accept that sentence as an alternative? IJA (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
it is really not about the olympics it is about Kosovo being disputed. Yes Kosovo will be in the Olympics and is a member of the IOC neither means Kosovo is not disputed. It is all over Wikipedia is every single kind of article. It is just a note about how Kosovo is disputed because it is. Trwck and field is an area where if its not accepted soon no Kosovo athlete in track and field will participate in Olympics. It's true of many sports. Kosovo isn't trying to get all sports because it doesn't have athletes for every sport. But since my opinion revolves around putting the footnote on every article Kosovo is mentioned as is close to being the case now I never thought this would be controversial as it never has been before. Football, judo so many sports and entertainment! Articles. It's evey where because Kosovo is disputed. It doesn't matter, or hasn't mattered, on weather or not its a full member of something because Kosovo is always disputed regardless. I disagree with your solution because you make it seem only serbia disputes Kosovo independence when Russia says Kosovo competing doesn't mean its not a part of Serbia or that Kosovo is independent. So many countries dispute kosovos independence its not just about Serbia which is why the footnote exists.Qwerty786 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
But many countries in the Olympics are "disputed", why do we need to mention this political dispute for Kosovo but not for the other disputed countries? Why must we give special treatment for Kosovo at the 2016 Olympics? Giving special treatment for Kosovo is in violation of WP:UNDUE. IJA (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Its not special treatment for Kosovo. There is an official wiki footnote for this. It's been made part of dozens and dozens if not hundreds of articles. It is mentioned about other countries being disputed in their pages. Chinese Taipei for example. The only problem with your compromise is that it implies only Serbia disputes Kosovo independence when that's not true. So rather than re write your statement on Kosovo controversy I just say add the footnote. The footnote says Kosovo is recognized by 108 countries and that's how it's in the Olympics but still many nations oppose Kosovo being independent. So you can add Russia, China, India, Brazil five members of the EU, etc or just add the common previously uncontroversial footnote. It doesn't politicize anything. It's just a fact that's part of dozens of sports articles. Qwerty786 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It isn't an "official wiki footnote", it was created by former User Whitewriter/ Tadja and has been put on the proposedWikipedia:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles. Now why should we have a note for Kosovo and not a note on other "disputed countries"? In my proposed sentence, I wasn't saying that only Serbia disputes Kosovo's statehood, I was trying to find content related to the 2016 Olympics and Kosovo's disputed political status; only Serbia contemplated boycotting the Olympics but decided against it. That is content related to the dispute which you wanted to include. I've amended the sentence for you: "This will be Kosovo's first participation in the Olympics since gaining IOC membership in December 2014, although Serbia protested Kosovo's admission to the IOC as Serbia officially claims Kosovo as its Southern Province and Kosovo is only recognised as a state by 114 UN member states and Taiwan (Chinese Taipei); Serbia however decided against boycotting the 2016 Rio Olympics as a consequence. (reference)" That better? It is also content related and can be included in the lead/ intro to the article. IJA (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think (I hope, that is) we're beginning to get somewhere. I've slightly cleaned up the sentence to say something like this: "This will be Kosovo's first participation in the Olympics since gaining IOC membership in December 2014, although Serbia protested Kosovo's admission to the IOC, as Serbia officially claims Kosovo as its Southern Province. Kosovo is only recognised as a state by 114 UN member states and Taiwan (Chinese Taipei). However, Serbia decided against boycotting the 2016 Rio Olympics as a consequence." --Biblioworm17:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not exactly like the footnote, as this sentence states why the political dispute is directly having an influence on the games. So, do you agree to this resolution, @IJA and @Qwerty786? --Biblioworm23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Are we all agreed then? I'm happy to go with @Biblioworm:'s minor revision of my proposal. These sentences mention the dispute as wanted by @Qwerty786: and it is directly in relation to the article content as required by myself, therefore explaining why the dispute is relevant to this article. I'm happy to have these sentences included in the lead/ introduction as I expect the article to grow in the future with the forthcoming Olympics. Then in the future after the 2016 Olympics, we just change "This will be Kosovo's first participation" to "This was Kosovo's first participation" and it can remain in the lead/ introduction. Also Merry Christmas. IJA (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Very well, then. I'll close this case as resolved, and someone can add the sentence. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any concerns about this closure. --Biblioworm01:28, 25 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.
Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
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)
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.
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."[12]
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"[13]
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
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.
Insufficient discussion, and this is bordering on a conduct dispute. I recommend discussing the issue on your personal talk pages. Thanks, --Biblioworm19:18, 27 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.
There was originally a dispute on whether or not to include Alexander Suvorov's Armenian origin in his article, and now the user disputing that wants to include a supposed Belorussian descent. I have provided academic sources and Masusimaru disputes them. This has been so far his only activity on Wikipedia.
To look over the talk and edit history and help to reach a final consensus.
Summary of dispute by Masusimaru
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Alexander Suvorov 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.
Failed or perhaps resolved at talk page. With one major disputant having failed to respond and another declining to participate in favor of additional talk page discussion and discussion having stalled at the talk page, I think this one was basically either resolved through consensus by silence at the talk page or simple attrition. This can be refiled if the dispute picks up again and becomes stalemated. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 29 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.
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.
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.
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)
@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. -Robtalk07:37, 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)
Comment - I am a volunteer at this dispute resolution noticeboard and am willing to try to help the editors reach agreement. However, I don't see any discussion at the article talk page, which is the first place to discuss content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was a bit hard to find and it began a month or two ago but the thread has renewed itself in recent days. I think it qualifies as significant discussion but if other DRN volunteers disagree they may act accordingly I won't contest a closure. Happy holidays!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
There has been no discussion at the article talk page since 16 December 2014. Recommend a general close without prejudice to reopening later. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 27 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.
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.
"Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" has been the wording for the Missouri footnote for almost a month now. That wording was changed and then I reverted that bold edit noting "We don't need to include rogue counties! Unlike Kansas, Missourian counties aren't 'within their right' to issue." Dralwik reverted me and said "I like this vaguer wording more." Since there was no consensus for the "vaguer" wording, I reverted the footnote back to its original wording per WP:STATUSQUO. Dralwik reverted the statusquo and said "Let's see if you violate 3RR". I definitely don't want to violate the 3RR rule, but I feel like per WP:STATUSQUO the original wording should be re-added until there is consensus for the other wording. WP:STATUSQUO says "If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way" and I feel like they went against this by reverting me because they "like" the other wording. They claim that there is consensus or that "STATUSQUO" was negated for the footnote due to the Color change proposal for Missouri. However, their rough draft proposal for the wording was "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" which is what the footnote has said for almost a month; but it wasn't until after everyone indicated they supported the coloring proposal for Missouri that Dralwik expressed they supported Shereth's wording and reverted me! Per WP:BRD the reverted bold edit should have stayed reverted while we're discussing and while we're working on consensus! However I learned that these policies might not be that legit..?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussing it at the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Determine what footnote should be currently displayed: the original wording or the current wording, while we try to form a consensus.
Summary of dispute by Dralwik
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Shereth
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
DNR volunteer administrative note: At present the talk page discussion is still ongoing and I don't think the discussion has matured yet to meet the 'significant discussion' requirement of DRN. So the DRN coordinator may want consider closing this request. I'll leave it to the judgement of others. Happy Holidays!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob: The main issue here is that the status quo keeps being reverted before it has been discussed enough and can be considered consensus. If this noticeboard is for issues that involve 'significant discussion', what noticeboard is for issues where people keep reverting the status quo before there has been 'significant discussion' on changing the template..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment for uninvolved editor; @Prcc27, the Dispute Resolution noticeboard is generally for content issues and not conduct behavior. You might want to look at WP:EW and WP:3RR for proper notification messages for editors who are reverting without following proper conduct guidelines. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:39, 26 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.
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle matters which are primarily conduct disputes. Conduct disputes should be referred to AN or ANI. This may be refiled as a content dispute with no discussion of conduct but, frankly, a volunteer may choose to simply close it again since the talk page discussion was, indeed, very short before it became diverted into conduct issues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 29 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.
I suggested merging Passphrase article with Password article and make Passphrase a section in the Password article. Another editor shut down the idea with no logical reason for why he was opposed. I made points as to why a merge made sense, but he still opposed. He cited various sources to strengthen his case but all I saw was sources that strengthens my point instead. He then claimed I was aggressive, but I told him that I clearly was not (does lack of smileys or neutral language equal aggressive now?) And then he deleted a whole bunch of my comments/counter points. The edit reason points to Wiki guidelines but I fail to see any violation of any guidelines. I feel he has censored me unjustly, and since he is a veteran editor i see no resort other than ask for help to resolve this dispute.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to be civil, I mentioned examples of why password and passphrase makes sense to be considered in the same article (just like Passcode and Passkey are in the Password article).
How do you think we can help?
It seems the other editor has an issue with me. I originally wanted to "Be Bold" as Wikipedia suggests and merge the articles, I wanted to get some feedback (and hopefully avoid an edit war), instead I'm now in a Talk page war apparently.
I want someone to evaluate the situation, and help make a consensus after evaluating the information in the Passphrase article and see the replication of information/overlap with the Password article.
I'd also like to know why I got censored in the talk page.
Summary of dispute by Guy Macon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Note: I have temporarily removed my name from the DRN volunteer list so the DRN bot will work properly.
Regarding the content dispute, there has been very little discussion on the article talk page, and per WP:CONSENSUS no dispute resolution venue is appropriate until both parties have made a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute through talk page discussions.
Rescator appears to be a fairly new editor who is editing in good faith but has not yet learned how to edit collaboratively or to seek consensus. I advise Rescator to try to dial back the aggression a bit and to have a calm, thoughtful discussion on the article talk page about what is best for the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The Wiki talk page guidelines lack information for multiple points and how to respond to them, and the talk page lack the ability to respond to separate points, hopefully one of these or both will be rectified in the future so situations like this can be avoided. I still have no clue why I'm being accused of being aggressive, I've been neutral, if I was angry I'd directly state it instead. But regardless of that this matter may be considered closed and I'll stay away from any further editing. I just hope that Guy Macon do not take this personally, his assertment that I'm aggressive seem to hint to that; and ironically I find him aggressive in his behavior, not sure if there is a language barrier or not between us (English is not my native language), I also apologize for wasting anyone else time due to this matter. My last words on this matter is this in regards to talk page guidelines: The Wiki talk page guidelines lack information for multiple points and how to respond to them, and the talk page lack the ability to respond to separate points, hopefully one of these or both will be rectified in the future so situations like this can be avoided.Rescator (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Passphrase discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello Rescator. I'm Biblioworm, a DRN volunteer. I've noticed that there seems to be little discussion about this, and since this dispute is only between the two of you, I think the third opinion page might be better at this time. If that fails, though, you can come here again. Thanks, --Biblioworm16:59, 27 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.
Premature due to insufficient talk page discussion. All moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. While there's been quite a bit of discussion about this topic at the article talk page, there has been none between these two editors. The filing editor should leave a note on the other editor's talk page asking to discuss the matter. If there is no response, consider the advice I give here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 31 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.
There's been disagreement over how the band should be defined: British (or English) or British-Irish (or English-Irish). The discussion in the talk page clearly gives arguments to define it as British-Irish but every attempt to do so has led to the changes being reverted.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Please keep it brief - less than 500 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
How do you think we can help?
Please keep it brief - less than 500 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by IPadPerson
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:One Direction 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.
Premature. No extensive talk page discussion as required by this forum and by all other moderated content dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 5 January 2015 (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.
In the article, The State of Palestine, the opening sentence claims that the State of Palestine is "is a de jure sovereign state in the Levant."
The issue I have with this is that in my opinion, the State of Palestine is not a de jure state, rather a self-proclaimed de facto state. This is also confirmed in the first source that is cited after the sentence (which was not cited by me): "The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state "
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talkbacks. WarKosign has not responded to me however.
How do you think we can help?
All my edits have been reverted without any talkbacks and evidence proving my assertion as false. I would like a rational voice to look over this case and give some insight.
Summary of dispute by WarKosign
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:State of_Palestine 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.
Premature. No recent extensive talk page discussion as required by this forum and by all other moderated content dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia. Except for edits by the listing editor, all discussion of this is several months old. Consider editing boldly and see if your position prevails; if not then reactivate discussion and discuss thoroughly. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 5 January 2015 (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.
Two very different definitions of Alevism competing to lead the article, with editors having very different ideas of what are proper sources for an article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk page, but there is complete disagreement what sources are proper.
How do you think we can help?
Review the different versions, and the sources they use, then give neutral opinions on the talk page and/or to individual editors.
Summary of dispute by Bektashi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 68.100.172.139
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 128.164.157.130
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Alevism 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.
Administrative close. No other parties listed. It is the listing party's obligation to include all participants in the dispute and to notify them on their talk pages. Please feel free to refile and do so. If all you wish to do is to attract other editors to the discussion, then a request for comments is the proper vehicle for that; be sure to thoroughly read all the instructions, however, before making your RfC request. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 5 January 2015 (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.
There have been some image suggestions on the talk page (dating back to 2013). Someone sneaked in a picture, disregarding the talkpage. There has never been consent about this picture. There are several things wrong with the picture, it contradicts with the articles introduction text, it's offtopic and it's biased.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to keep the discussion going and I also suggested better images. But in response I get "not interested in your picture preference" remarks, along with some personal attacks. I have also tried to add a Requests for Comment, but this request does not show up anywhere. Perhaps I am doing something wrong.
How do you think we can help?
Need more commenters to keep the discussion going.
Summary of dispute by null
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
