Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember guidelines and policy when discussing issues. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, and their role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. They also collect the monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is MrScorch6200.

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. Comment on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.

  • Please refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only.

Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
  • The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN.
  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict 4NeedAssist TheTimesAreAChanging (t) 2014-09-01 03:04:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-09-20 20:36:00 TheTimesAreAChanging (t) 2014-09-23 22:35:00
Lviv 7Closed (t) 2014-09-05 15:49:00 Kkj11210 (t) 2014-09-23 03:36:00 Kkj11210 (t) 2014-09-23 03:36:00
War of the Pacific 1New Keysanger (t) 2014-09-13 09:07:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-09-19 21:26:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-09-19 21:26:00
Gospel of Matthew 2In Progress PiCo (t) 2014-09-18 02:17:00 John Carter (t) 2014-09-23 15:12:00 John Carter (t) 2014-09-23 15:12:00
Talk:GamerGate 2In Progress Retartist (t) 2014-09-18 06:12:00 Kkj11210 (t) 2014-09-23 22:53:00 Kkj11210 (t) 2014-09-23 22:53:00
Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius#Reasonable foresight 6Resolved HelenOnline (t) 2014-09-18 06:49:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-09-23 17:40:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-09-23 17:40:00
Talk:Artificial intelligence 1New CharlesGillingham (t) 2014-09-20 16:24:00 Acetotyce (t) 2014-09-20 16:41:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2014-09-22 16:31:00
Talk:Traxon Technologies 7Closed Rimsky.cheng (t) 2014-09-21 09:39:00 Rimsky.cheng (t) 2014-09-22 13:46:00 Cannolis (t) 2014-09-23 06:52:00
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 23:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by TheTimesAreAChanging on 03:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Reliable sources--including news reports describing the attacks, official statements by the Israeli PM, and secondary analyses--state that Hamas began directly firing rockets at Israel on June 29 or June 30. Other reliable sources state that Hamas only began taking formal "responsibility" for rocket attacks after a July 6 Israeli attack on Khan Yunis killed Hamas members. Even though all of those sources explicitly attribute the latter claim to Hamas, and my opponents acknowledge the ambiguity of the "responsibility" language, outspoken anti-Israel activist editors have deleted the Israeli claims on the grounds that the sources are somehow less than reliable. The discussion on the talk page speaks for itself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion.

How do you think we can help?

You can examine the sources in a neutral manner and suggest a proposed wording.

Summary of dispute by Nishidani[edit]

Nothing to say here, because the report falsifies the evidence (all sources do not attribute to Hamas a claim that they took responsibility on the 7th. (b)'outspoken anti-Israel activist editors' is the editor's way of writing 'people who disagree with me', and implies the editor has already profiled people who do not agree with him as animated by some pathological hostility to a state. It's a smearing caricature.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kingsindian[edit]

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

The issue here is when Hamas rocket fire started. There is a long discussion here. The basic source here is Nathan Thrall. The full quote by Thrall is given here.

Several points now:

  • The lead is a summary, and it was agreed to keep it as short as possible.
  • Thrall is a neutral, highly respected analyst at the International Crisis Group. The source is eminently WP:RS. There is no "Hamas claim" which he is reporting.
  • Thrall makes it clear that the rockets before July 6 were fired by non-Hamas groups. The last sentence by Thrall is slightly ambiguous, which can be read as Hamas taking responsibility for rocket fire after 6 July, or Hamas taking responsibility for rockets before 6 July.
  • Other sources detailed in the section speak less ambiguously and each points to July 6 raid as the date when Hamas started firing rockets. There is only one exception cited there, J.J. Goldberg, who repeats the Israeli claim that the rocket fire started on June 30.
  • There are some news reports, cited here by TheTimesAreAChanging which (mostly) report the Netanyahu claim, or cite the IDF that Hamas rockets started on June 30 or "Hamas involvement" in the rockets. A typical example is the Reuters report, which makes it clear (even in the title) that it is reporting Netanyahu's claims. Most of the other news reports either quote the IDF or Netanyahu. As far as I can see, there is exactly one report by Ynet, an Israeli newspaper, which states this in its own voice, but a cursory look at that article will show that it is based on IDF sources.
  • Newspapers are meant to report real-time things and often they just report, "he said, she said" (often they don't bother about "she said"). The Thrall source (and others cited in the section) are neutral, third party analysts, some of them could be accused of bias for sure.
  • I have offered earlier to include the Thrall quote with its slight ambiguity and with attribution. That was not commented upon, and I assume, rejected.

This is not the venue to be discussing conduct, so any accusation of "anti-Israel activist editors" is out of place. Needless to say, it is false, TheTimesAreAChanging has already made up his mind about me and nothing will shake it. Kingsindian (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Shrike[edit]

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

We should stick to what sources say pretty simple .Thrall source its only one source and we may use it but there are other sources like analysis by Goldenberg that are too important and as TheTimesAreAChanging said we shouldn't advance one POV that rockets that where fired before was not by Hamas while other sources clearly say that where fired by Hamas member.We should definitely include this information.--Shrike (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by -sche[edit]

Since someone in the discussion section has noted my silence, I suppose I'll comment out loud: meh. My main interest is keeping the article well-copyedited, I don't have strong feelings about whether or not the "30 June" claim should be included. On the talk page, someone discussed changing "which Hamas itself began following an Israeli airstrike on 6 July which killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis" to "which Hamas itself began on either June 30 (according to Israel) or July 7 (according to Hamas)". This was shot down (ugh, did I just make a missile pun?) because the July 7 date was not "according to Hamas", but "according to several sources independent of either Hamas or the IDF". Perhaps the solution is just to say that, i.e. to say something to the effect of "which Hamas itself began either (according to several sources) on 7 July after an Israeli airstrike on 6 July killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis, or (according to Israel) on 30 June". -sche (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IRISZOOM[edit]

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

As others have explained here, the problem is not correctly described here. The claim is not made by Hamas but neutral authors. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not only one source, it's several of them. One more was noted by me yesterday, an article written by Noam Chomsky. See this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject: Z Communications is fringe. Chomsky is a notable polemicist. Nishidani favors keeping the Goldberg claim with attribution, but it is not clear why Thrall or Chomsky do not need attribution, or why the lead should not summarize that part of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Chomsky is a respected person.
Goldberg's claim can be there but it doesn't change many more sources say the opposite of what he says. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict discussion[edit]

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

The BBC source says "On 7 July, Hamas claimed responsibility." Thrall says "[On 7 July,] Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets." (Which may include the rockets fired before.) Both of those claims are explicitly attributed to Hamas. By contrast, Goldberg says "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad [emphasis added] killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day [Hamas] unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over. Israel was forced to retaliate for the rockets with air raids." Ynet reported: "For the first time since the end of the IDF Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012, the Hamas military wing is behind rocket strikes on Israel, with a wave of attacks overnight Sunday (June 29) and early Monday emanating from central Gaza refugee camps completely under Hamas control. There a number of Palestinian factions active in Gaza and though Israel views Hamas as responsible for any rockets fired from the Gaza territory, the group generally avoids such direct attacks on Israel. In the past 24 hours, however, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades have been launching rockets from the Dir al Balach, Bureij and Muasi refugee camps...Monday's rockets were of an older make known to be in the Hamas arsenal...The IDF said Mohammed Zaid Abid was killed after the army launched a targeted attack against his rocket launching cell minutes before they planned to fire at Israel. Abid was identified by Palestinian media as a member of the Hamas military wing." So Ynet cites the IDF and Palestinian media for information on Abid, but neither Ynet nor the later analysis by Goldberg directly attribute the claim of Hamas rocket fire on June 30 to Israel. Even if the Reuters article quoting Netanyahu were the only source, and this was an "Israeli government POV", it would be grossly misleading to suppress it in favor of the official Hamas POV. Nishidani and Kingsindian appear to believe, because they are fans of Thrall's work and have praised it on Nishidani's talk page, that Thrall had some mechanism for determining the earlier reports of Hamas rocket fire were false and for verifying the official Hamas claims. That is sheer nonsense.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thrall says it in his own voice, and is not quoting Hamas claims. He also says in his own voice, that the pre-July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas factions. The fact that Thrall did not repeat the Israeli claim, while he stated the facts in his own voice is operative. Your opinion about his methods is irrelevant here. I will take Thrall's analysis over a WP editor's. If you feel his last sentence is ambiguous, I have already made the offer to quote it directly, with attribution. Kingsindian (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thrall and BBC are no more reliable than Goldberg or Ynet. I was not aware of any proposal to quote Thrall prior to this DRN discussion, but since we are here I welcome volunteer input on this matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, I am MrScorch6200, the DRN coordinator. Please remember to keep discussion to a minimum until this case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks and regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not opening this case but I have a procedural question: Three of the five editors invited by the filing party appear to have chosen not to participate here. One has removed the DRN notice from their talk page. The other two have edited WP since the DRN notice was placed on their page. Is it useful to continue with this case in spite of their absence? What do the participants think?-- KeithbobTalk 04:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is useful to continue. I would appreciate a neutral observer's take on the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: I don't see any indication of meaningful participation here by the named parties. DRN participation is optional and if editors to not want to engage in moderated discussion we cannot force them to. So far only the filing party has said they feel that partial consensus would be valuable in moving the issue forward. If you want "a neutral observer's take on the sources" then I suggest a WP:3O as DRN is for moderated discussion not outside opinions.-- KeithbobTalk 20:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As a possibly unusual step I left notes for Shrike and IRISZOOM encouraging them to actively participate. It would be unfortunate if the DRN had to close due to their absence. DRN is one of our better methods of resolving disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Everyone has commented except Shrike, who only left a sentence on the talk page in the first place. You previously told us to limit our discussion before a volunteer got involved. There is no reason why an impartial opinion should be this difficult to obtain. Thank you for the suggestion on 3O; I will try that if Shrike's absence is really so crucial.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not used WP:DRN before, so I am puzzled about the procedure. The talk page discussion is already listed, and we were told not to discuss more without volunteer input. Now there is a 24-hour closing notice (on the heels of a 48-hour closing notice, which I was equally puzzled by, and which was withdrawn after I clarified matters). As to the statement by IRISZOOM, they can speak for themselves, but my feeling is simply that they didn't elaborate because it would simply repeat the talk page discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Four days ago I asked the participants if they felt a discussion by a limited portion of the parties listed would be useful and beneficial. Only the filing party responded. There was no other support or input. That created doubt in my mind about the will of the participants to continue. As a few others have now responded and indicated they want a moderated discussion. So I'll allow the case to stay open a bit longer in the hopes that a volunteer will take the case soon. Thanks for your patience.-- KeithbobTalk 16:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute[edit]

Attn: Nishidani,Kingsindian, Shrike,-sche, IRISZOOM and TheTimesAreAChanging

  • My time is limited so it is with reluctance that I take this case. However, since no one else has come forward or responded to my plea on the DRN talk page, I am opening this discussion. All participants have faithfully come to the discussion table and posted summaries and deserve to work out this issue in a neutral forum such as DRN so I will do my best to serve in that role.
  • Please be reminded that we are here to discuss content only. I understand emotions sometimes run high but please refrain from personalizing the discussion by making comments about bad faith, bias etc. Let's focus solely on the content.
  • First we need to agree on the core of the dispute. Am I correct in stating that the core of the dispute is over how to characterize the media reports sources regarding Hamas' involvement (or non-involvement) in the rockets fired at Israel in late June? Is this correct?-- KeithbobTalk 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Not media reports. That is just one source. For instance, the Nathan Thrall source is not a media report. The issue is how to describe the situation in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Since both conflicting claims are in the body, both should be mentioned in the lead, with wording we can all accept.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I"ve changed my statement to read "sources" instead of "media reports".-- KeithbobTalk 03:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That is still imprecise. The nuances are already discussed in the background section. The issue is how to describe it in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok then please propose [here] your own succinct version of the core of the dispute and we'll see if we can get it ratified by the other participants. Identifying and agreeing on the boundaries of the dispute is the first step in the resolution process.-- KeithbobTalk 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The core of the dispute is how to describe the chronology of the rocket fire in the lead. Currently, it states the following (paraphrasing). "Non-Hamas factions in Gaza started rocket fire in response to various events (crackdown in the West Bank, itself in response to kidnapping/murder of three teenagers). On 6 July, an air strike killed 7 Hamas militants. After this, Hamas began taking responsibility for rocket fire." TheTimesAreAChanging wishes to add the statement (properly attributed) that Hamas actually started rocket fire on 30 June, which is the Israeli claim. My view is that the neutral sources describe the chronology as currently stated. In my view, the nuances should be described in the Background section, as is the case now. Kingsindian (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that Ynet or Goldberg are truly less neutral than Thrall or Chomsky, or that the Israeli position is irrelevant to this war between Israel and Gaza.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's take on thing at a time. We are not discussing proposed changes yet. What we are doing is gaining consensus on what the core of the dispute is. This should be easy, let's not make it complicated. The proposed 'core of the dispute' is:

  • How to describe the chronology, of this summer's rocket fire on Israel, in the lead of the article.

Can we all agree on that? -- KeithbobTalk 17:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Kingsindian (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes.--Shrike (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks everyone. Now let's move on. Can someone ID the section of the exact sentences in the article that we are trying to summarize in the lead?-- KeithbobTalk 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The content we want to summarize[edit]

2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Immediate_events. Starting from "On 29 June, an Israeli airstrike..." to "Early on 8 July..." Kingsindian (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. So this is the content we want to summarize in the lead:
    • On 29 June, an Israeli airstrike on a rocket crew killed a Hamas operative, while at least 18 rockets were launched from Gaza through the next day by Hamas according to J.J. Goldberg, who states that it was the first time Hamas itself had launched rockets since the conflict in 2012.[84] Overnight, on 30 June – 1 July, Israeli airstrikes struck 34 Gaza targets in what officials stated was a response to the Sunday rocketry,[138] while Stuart Greer reported the strikes were revenge for the deaths of the three youths.[139] From the day of the abductions on 12 June through 5 July 117 rockets were launched from Gaza and there were approximately 80 Israeli airstrikes on Gaza.[140][141] On 4 July, Hamas declared it was prepared to halt the rocket fire in exchange for an agreement by Israel to stop airstrikes.[142] Israel issued a warning that it "would only be able to sustain militant rocket fire for another 24, or maximum 48, hours before undertaking a major military offensive."[143] On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid on the house of a Hamas operative in Khan Yunis killed seven people.[93][144][145] The following day, Hamas referred to the incident as a "massacre against women and children [and] a horrendous war crime" and claimed "all Israelis have now become legitimate targets"; it then assumed formal responsibility for launching rocket attacks on Israel.[32][85][144][145] Hamas increased rocket attacks on Israel,[85] and by 7 July had fired 100 rockets from Gaza at Israeli territory; at the same time, the Israeli Air Force had bombed several sites in Gaza.[146][147][148]
Which sentences in the lead currently summarize this content?-- KeithbobTalk 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"The aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions began following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank after the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members, and which Hamas took responsibility for on 7 July (launching 40 rockets) after an Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis killed seven of its members."

Unfortunately that is a slightly unfortunate version, which was made in copyediting the passage: which rendered it ambiguous. This has not been fixed due to the mass of other edits I had to attend to. The earlier version was the following. Kingsindian (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions began following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank after the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members.[1] Hamas in turn on July 7, after seven of its militants died in an Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis the day before, assumed responsibility for missiles fired from Gaza and launched a barrage of 40 rockets.[2][1][3][4]

  1. ^ a b Nathan Thrall (1 August 2014). "Hamas's Chances". London Review of Books 36 (16). 
  2. ^ Christa Case Bryant, 'Ending détente, Hamas takes responsibility for today's spike in rocket fire (+video)', Christian Science Monitor, 7 July 2014: "After days of steadily increasing strikes, Hamas militants in Gaza launched at least 40 rockets tonight alone in what appears to be a decision to escalate the conflict. The dramatic spike in rocket attacks is likely to put significant pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to heed calls for an all-out offensive against the Islamist movement, which Israel and the US consider a terrorist organization. While there has been intermittent rocket fire from Gaza since the cease-fire that ended the November 2012 Pillar of Defense conflict, Israel has credited Hamas with largely doing its best to keep the various militant factions in line. Today, however, Hamas took direct responsibility for the fire for the first time, sending a barrage of dozens of rockets into Israel in the worst day of such violence in two years."
  3. ^ "Gaza-Israel conflict: Is the fighting over?". BBC. 26 August 2014. Retrieved 28 August 2014. "On 7 July, Hamas claimed responsibility for firing rockets for the first time in 20 months, after a series of Israeli air strikes in which several members of its armed wing were killed." 
  4. ^ "IDF's Operation "Protective Edge" Begins Against Gaza". Jewish Press. Retrieved 8 July 2014. 

Proposed changes to the lead[edit]

What are the proposed changes to the section of the lead cited above?-- KeithbobTalk 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the paragraph as quoted is fine, though it is awkwardly phrased. This is perhaps unavoidable, but cogency is a small price to pay for NPOV in this topic area. TheTimesAreAChanging can speak for himself, but my impression is that he wants the claim by Goldberg, that Hamas started rocket fire on June 30 to be included in the lead. I oppose this, per WP:UNDUE and WP:SS. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Good points, let's see what others have to say.-- KeithbobTalk 16:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The claim by Goldberg, Ynet, and the Israeli government that Hamas began direct rocket fire on June 30 (after attempted Hamas rocket fire on June 29) is a salient counterpoint to the Hamas claim that the rocket attacks were a response to the July 6 Israeli attack on Khan Yunis (which was itself a response to Hamas' refusal to abide by Israel's July 4 warning that it could only sustain rocket fire for another 48 hours). Most of the rockets from "non-Hamas factions", incidentally, are launched by Hamas' allies in Islamic Jihad, who Hamas allows to operate freely and many of whose attacks have been launched under Hamas' direct control and supervision--not by fringe al Qaeda affiliates. While Hamas' ability to control rocket fire from Gaza has been demonstrated by their ability to adhere to ceasefires in the past, the quadrupling of rocket fire following the Hamas takeover of the territory, and the upsurge in rocket attacks publicly supported by Hamas in "protest" of the arrest of Hamas members, the article also fails to emphasize what even lefties like Goldberg and Thrall plainly say: That Hamas allowed the massive upsurge in rocket fire against Israel. Goldberg says Hamas merely gave up on law enforcement, adding that many Hamas members went into hiding because they feared an "inevitable" Israeli attack over the deaths of the three teenagers, while Thrall says Hamas wanted to demonstrate their credibility to the Arab Street by calling for a Third Intifada, and thus could not "sell out" by adhering to the 2012 ceasefire. I think it's more likely that jihadists are in a perpetual struggle to be holier than thou by making war against the infidels, and that Hamas' repeated ceasefire violations during the war demonstrate the falsity of attributing their fundamental motivation to tragically misread signals with both sides equally at fault for escalating rhetoric. However, even Thrall and Goldberg support the claim that Hamas stopped enforcing the 2012 ceasefire among "non-Hamas factions", a point Wikipedia does not make regarding the increase in rocket fire anywhere in the entire article. My suggestion that we at least include the Israeli claim of direct Hamas rocket fire on June 30 was thus the bare minimum proposal for a neutral lead that I could possibly abide.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Any comments from other participants?-- KeithbobTalk 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
A gentle ping to Shrike, IRISZOOM and Nishidani, who might have forgotten that this is going on. I have my own thoughts on TheTimesAreAChanging's comments, but I will wait before others have weighed in, or till asked by the moderator. I did not ping -sche because he said his only interest is in copyediting, not content. Kingsindian (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I support the analysis of TTAG per NPOV policy as we should give view of all the POVs on this matter.--Shrike (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you and a few other editors stop 'voting'. This is about reasoned argument, and 'votes' devoid of intelligent reflection risk being read as support flags on partisan grounds.
It's actually much more complex than this. Israel and non-Hamas affiliated groups exchanged fire through June as any date+airstrike search for June will show. The TimesAreAChanging's WP:OR version of history in which he imputes some hidden complicity between Hamas and these groups is denied by numerous sources, including, authoritatively, the Israeli gov. at the time. Neither Thrall and Goldberg are 'lefties' which is cant used to smear opinions by authoritative journalists, scholars and area specialists some highly partisans sources dislike. Fourth. If you like, you can find journalistic sources reporting that a Senior Southern Command (Gaza) officer said the IDF had knowledge Hamas planned a "July War" since either late 2013 or 2014. This was later dismissed as nonsense, but much of the other nonsense taken by the press from IDF and other sources is repeated in newspapers, and that is why one must exercise extreme care with the Ynet et al. articles cited. They attribute to IDF sources an attribution to Hamas. It is still not clear. Fifth, TTAAC is waving for a putative Hamas rocket attempt on June 29, and then the beginning (i.e. it never stopped from thereone in) of rocket fire on June 30, to Goldberg. In a latter piece Goldberg revises this picture:
J.J. Goldberg Kidnap Plotter Indicted: Still Looks Like 'Lone Cell' The Forward 5 September 2014, now reads:

Meshaal, in fact, stated explicitly that Hamas hadn’t known, as he said to Al Jazeera June 24 and to Sky News on July 3. Sky News reported at the time, citing unnamed Hamas officials, that Hamas had asked Turkey to tell Israel the organization wanted to restore calm and avoid escalation. This was in the immediate aftermath after several rounds of escalating exchanges — several barrages of radical jihadi rockets that Hamas failed to interdict in June, Israel’s accidental killing of a Hamas operative during a retaliatory strike on a jihadi rockets squad June 30 and a Hamas rocket barrage July 1 in retaliation for the killing — were leading the two sides to the brink of war.

This has Goldberg saying Israel and Gazan non-affiliated groups were shooting at each other through late June (as newspapers report). Hamas failed to stop the jihadis, one Hamas official was accidentally killed by Israel as Israel fired back at a group. Hamas, doing what Israel does, fired back in retaliation on July 1 at Israel (not June 30), and as escalation loomed, informed Israel two days later via Turkey that, Hamas desired a return of calm to avoid escalation. What happened through 4-7 (Israel's response is another interesting tale, not told in those sources).
So Goldberg (1) from which TTAAC had made his huge WP:OR tract is revised, retracted or finessed by a narrative (Goldberg (2)) that, rather than permit the hasbara POV meme which invariably has it, on each an every occasion that, 'Israel was attacked' and 'responded to the aggression', now reads:'non-Hamas forces and Israel exchanged fire. A Hamas official was killed by Israeli firing at the latter, and Hamas retaliated, and then sought through diplomatic channels to restore calm with Israel. This selective use of sources, compounded by WP:OR, has produced the travesty above, which tries to use Goldberg (1) to undermine the authority of 7 other sources listed on my page, which concentrate on the key period 7 July for the moment in which Hamas decided, after an Israeli strike killed several of its members, to respond in kind. (Nishidani 23:44 my time. my computer won't allow me to sign this page)Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The public stance taken by Israeli officials, which you less charitably describe as the "hasbara POV meme", should be included in the article because Israel is a party to the conflict.
Why do we only present the Hamas view on the "Khan Yunis massacre", their official pretext for attacking Israel? Israel denied responsibility for killing the 6 Hamas members: "Hamas has vowed revenge for what it saw as Israel's deadliest attacks in which six Palestinian militants died, though Israel denied any involvement...The Israeli military said its aircraft had targeted "terror sites and concealed rocket launchers" in the enclave, but had not hit the southern Gaza area of Rafah, on the Egyptian border, where the Hamas gunmen died. Military spokesman Lerner said the militants had died when explosives went off in a tunnel that Israel had bombed several days ago, fearing gunmen planned to use it to try and penetrate into Israel."
On a related note, why doesn't the lead also mention that the killing of the three Israeli teenagers was funded by Hamas, not merely committed by "Hamas members"? Even (an unapologetic) lefty as eager to absolve Hamas of responsibility as Goldberg, in the very article you linked to above, makes this same point--although he hastens to add "It's not clear whether Mahmoud got the money from a source closer to the Hamas leadership or somehow finagled it from the foundation. Either way... Hussam merely told him it would be used for an unspecified 'military operation'." (Hamas deliberately has a separate "military wing" so that Meshaal can always disavow direct involvement in any Hamas terror attacks.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, and this point, I'm out. You're 'constructions' are fantasies, and I haven't the time to dismantle more than one, per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talkcontribs)
I am not sure of the DRN procedure. As far as I understand, this is not like a regular talk page discussion. If the moderator agrees, I will make a short reply to TTAAC. Kingsindian (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nishidani These persistent criticisms and commands to other editors are personal attacks:

  • Can you and a few other editors stop 'voting'. This is about reasoned argument, and 'votes' devoid of intelligent reflection
  • TimesAreAChanging's WP:OR version of history in which he imputes some hidden complicity
  • You're 'constructions' are fantasies

They will not be tolerated here. Stop personalizing the discussion and limit your comments to issues concerning content and sources. Do not mention other editors or speculate about their intelligence, motivations or behavior. This is your only warning. If you continue, you will be asked to leave this discussion.-- KeithbobTalk 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, User:Kingsindian you are welcome to comment.-- KeithbobTalk 18:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll do you a favour and preempt your imminent invitation. I will note that you utterly failed to read to the WP:BLP implications of TTAAC's attack on distinguished independent-minded analysts as "lefties", when they fit perfectly our WP:RS criteria's stringency tests, who happen not to share his personal interpretation of the history (WP:OR ('I think it's more likely that jihadists are in a perpetual struggle to be holier than thou by making war against the infidels,'), not to speak of his attack on WP:NPOV, since his outline, which we were invited to comment, is a plea for the 'truth' of his personal views on the subject, which have no place in an encyclopedia. I'm busy on more important wiki work, and am pleased at your suggestion my detailed technical reply and its style is unwelcome here. It relieves me of one more noisome duty. Good luck with the mediation though Bob. I have had occasion to admire parts of your work in the past.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) TTAAC's point is that Israel is one party to the conflict, so its narrative should be presented. By that logic, we should be putting Hamas's claim that there were 1000 Israeli soldiers killed in the lead (it is, rightly, being kept out). One is not supposed to give equal weight to all points of view, one is supposed to give WP:DUE weight.
  • Everybody recognizes (I mean everybody, including Israel), that the major point of escalation of the conflict was July 6. I was in favour of keeping the background out of the lead altogether, but people kept insisting on putting it there. So the kidnapping of the three teenagers is being mentioned, as is the subsequent crackdown on the West Bank, and the rocket fire.
  • This discrediting of sources like Thrall by calling them "leftists" is neither here nor there. Firstly, Thrall is not a leftist. Secondly, even if he was, the International Crisis Group is impeccably neutral and mainstream and London Review of Books is WP:RS. Thirdly, if one does not like Thrall, consider the other sources I mentioned, David C. Hendrickson, writing in The National Interest, founded by Irving Kristol. If Irving Kristol was a leftist, I am a monkey's uncle. Hendrickson gives three sources as authoritative timelines. Each of them fingers 6 July as the point of departure. I have given all the quotes here.
  • @Keithbob: I find your comments regarding Nishidani strange. His comments are not directed against the person, but the edit. His view of Shrike's edit was that he was "voting", not arguing. Whether that is right or wrong, is not a personal attack. Similar is the comment regarding TTAAC's supposed WP:OR, again, addressing the content. The last comment was indeed a bit intemperate and should not have been made. Kingsindian (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Shrike probably felt he had to comment because of how progress here was initially stalled until everyone commented. I have not argued that any source is unreliable for political reasons, nor denied the massive escalation after July 6. A completely neutral editor might still wonder why the only POV presented by Wikipedia is that of Hamas retaliating to an airstrike on Khan Yunis, when Israel says Hamas started firing well before and the Hamas members in Khan Yunis accidentally blew themselves up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Goldberg's new account, mentioned by Nishidani, weakens the argument made by TTAAC. We are left with Ynet who says Hamas started shooting on 30 June but, as mentioned by Kingsindian before, they seem to report the view of Israel. The same day, Times of Israel reported the same thing but mentioned it was reported by Israeli officials. See Hamas fires rockets for first time since 2012, Israeli officials say. Compare with Hamas behind rocket barrage on Israel for first time since 2012 by Ynetnews. Both also mention the rockets came after a member of Hamas military wing was killed and several injured. ToL also says "The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more".
Anyway, there are plenty of sources (linked above by Kingsindian plus Noam Chomsky as I reported here earlier, who TTAAC also dismissed) who say that Hamas responded by starting shooting rockets when several of their members got killed on 6/7 July. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing from this case. Will another DRN volunteer please take my place?[edit]

In my opinion, Nishidani's tone was aggressive and derogatory and his comments personalized the discussion, which I do not allow when I am moderating a discussion. Since some participants seem to doubt my judgement, and my ability to constructively lead this discussion and gain resolution, I am now withdrawing myself from the case. I posted a notice on the DRN talk page asking if another volunteer would like to pick up the case. If things don't work out there, I suggest you all explore other options such as WP:RFC or WP:MEDIATION. Best, -- KeithbobTalk 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone doubts your judgement, even Nishidani. I wish you would reconsider.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob: I did not question your judgement, I merely asked for clarification on a peripheral point. Moderating a discussion is hard enough, and it is up to you, of course, if you wish to continue. From my understanding, Nishidani has given his views, and does not intend to participate further in this discussion. I have no issue with you so far. Kingsindian (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've already stepped aside. Good luck to all of you. -- KeithbobTalk 20:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Offer for WikiProjects Interwiki dispute resolution[edit]

User:Keithbob has indicated his withdrawing. If it is of interest to move this issue toward resolution, I can offer to look at this under my interest in Interwiki project cooperation. I have read and have familiarity with both the Hebrew version and the Persian version of this Page. As a non-editor of any of these pages, including the English version, my viewpoint would be neutral, though all participants would need to accept that this be done under very strict adherence to WP:MoS and WP:Lede for all policy and guidelines. If this is agreeable then it would help to have the representative statements for the SUPPORT and OPPOSE clearly restated here below by at least one representative from each side. Otherwise, no response within twenty-four hours shall be a strong indication that the matter has become stale and suitable for being closed. FelixRosch (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no issues with any neutral mediator, but I am unclear about a couple of points. Firstly, I assume that the Interwiki cooperation simply refers to your point of departure, and we are not required to align the lead based on other wikis? Secondly, do you require a statement by me detailing the arguments, or simply a version of the lead which I prefer? If it's the latter, I have already indicated that the version currently present is fine. Kingsindian (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. On the first question, the other Interwiki pages provide a point of departure for further comparison as needed. Second, if you are endorsing the current version then all that's needed for neutrality at this point would be for someone representing the OPPOSE viewpoint to state the form of the Lede which they prefer. @Kingsindian; If you could ping the interested parties to state their version of it this would be useful. Otherwise, no response within twenty-four hours shall be a strong indication that the matter has become stale and suitable for being closed. FelixRosch (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, pinging Shrike and TheTimesAreAChanging to give their preferred version of this part of the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I already attempted to edit the lead, and was immediately reverted, with no counter-proposal. The dispute is not merely over phrasing, but whether the information I wish to include is so undue as to be unworthy of inclusion. The current lead implies Israeli aggression against Hamas by stating that Israel killed several Hamas members in Khan Yunis on July 6, and Hamas retaliated with rockets. However, Israeli officials have stated that Hamas started firing rockets circa June 30, while the Hamas members killed in Khan Yunis accidentally blew themselves up in one of their tunnels. (Of course, the urgency of eradicating the tunnel structure built by Hamas with the aim of sending thousands of terrorists to massacre/kidnap tens of thousands of Israeli civilians far outweighed the importance of stopping the rockets, but the media did focus on the latter threat.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It is important for me to stress the importance that you place the full version of the paragraph for the Lede you wish to place immediately below this comment. @TheTimesAreAChanging; A neutral review shall require that I see the two versions side by side. Also, I have asked that before my agreeing to follow-up on this resolution that all participants to the process agree to a very strict application of all guidelines and policies for WP:MoS and WP:Lede. @Kingsindian has already, I think, affirmed this and I ask the same for yourself. Unless there is a side by side version for comparison placed within twenty-four hours, its absence shall be a strong indication that this matter has become stale and suitable for being closed. FelixRosch (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
While TheTimesAreAChanging can answer for himself, I can perhaps post the diff which was the initial subject of dispute. Perhaps that can be taken as the version which he prefers. Kingsindian (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions began after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members. Hamas assumed formal responsibility for firing rockets at Israel after denouncing a "massacre" of Hamas members during a July 6 Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis. Israeli officials stated that Hamas began firing rockets on June 30, and denied launching any airstrike on Khan Yunis on July 6."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
To both editors; There is a basis for a side by side comparison. The matter is limited to the second paragraph of the current Lede, and appears to state that there is no issue with the first sentence of the second paragraph in the current Lede. Second, that there is no issue with the second sentence in the second paragraph in the current Lede either. The issue being resolved is the proposal of one editor to insert two new sentences directly after the first sentence of the second paragraph of the current Lede followed by the rest of the paragraph in its current form, and another editor who wishes to exclude these two sentences from addition to the Lede. If that is a fair summary then each of the editors should affirm this, along with your agreement to my request that very strict guidelines for WP:MoS and WP:Lede apply throughout. @Kingsindian, if you could indicate your best reason for why this material should not be placed in the Lede along with any cites you have for your reason. @TheTimesAreAChanging, if you could indicate your best reason for why this material should be added to the Lede along your cites from the main body of the article being used to support your proposed addition in the Lede. If this is not possible, then indicate your concerns below within twenty-four hours, otherwise the matter shall be taken as stale and suitable for being closed. FelixRosch (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I repeat: "The current lead implies Israeli aggression against Hamas by stating that Israel killed several Hamas members in Khan Yunis on July 6, and Hamas retaliated with rockets. However, Israeli officials have stated that Hamas started firing rockets circa June 30, while the Hamas members killed in Khan Yunis accidentally blew themselves up in one of their tunnels." The Israeli claims should be included to achieve NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
An Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis was not the cause of the escalation after July 6. The New York Times reported: "When Hamas militants entered the damaged tunnel a day or so later, they apparently set off explosives there...Hamas blamed Israel, escalating the hostilities that grew into the current confrontation."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by on 15:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

War of the Pacific[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Keysanger on 09:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Was the 14 February 1879 the beginning of the War of the Pacific or another date in a chain of pivotal dates in the road to war?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A RfC failed to find a solution: Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?

How do you think we can help?

To find an adequate wording for the lede

Summary of dispute by Keysanger[edit]

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

The closer of the RfC states: There are WP:RS on both sides here, and people working in good faith can come to the opposite conclusion as to which the the right answer is. The Context matters bit is important however, and some of the sources are certainly less reliable for historical analysis than others.[2]

Therefore I think that Darkness Shines's sentence The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879 doesn't meet the WP rules for neutrality. I proposed:

  1. The crisis sharpened on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, [3]
  2. Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces, enthusiastic welcomed by the population, occupied the port city of Antofagasta (83% Chilean population), as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA, although the first battle occurred in Topater on 23 March 1879, after the Bolivian Declaration of War and before the Chilean Declaration of War.[4] [5]

Both proposals have been reverted by DS, those only proposal has been The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879. There is no mention of any other dates or sources.

I ask DS to make a proposal considering the other sources that have analysed the significance of the 14 February (Sater, Farcau, and Pike). --Keysanger (Talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines[edit]

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

Sorry, I have been very busy the last few weeks, and I am currently very ill. I will try and make a statement within a few days. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Eduardo Eddy Ramirez[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by[edit]

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

WP:Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? discussion[edit]

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

Administrative note: I've notified User:Darkness Shines about this case.-- KeithbobTalk 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) I've also added and notified two other users who were involved in the dispute on the talk page.-- KeithbobTalk 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC) PS I'm not opening this case, just trying to help get it ready for another volunteer to take and moderate.-- KeithbobTalk 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by PiCo on 02:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is about how Due and Undue Weight policy is to be understood.

Andrevan, who is a new editor on the article, wishes to add material about the date and composition-history of the gospel of Matthew, and other editors regard the additions as unnecessary because they over-represent minority views - undue weight, in other words.

In a nutshell: the majority of scholars believe that Gospel of Matthew (GM) was composed after 70 AD, a minority argue strongly for a pre-70 date. This isn't in dispute between editors. We mention it in the lead and again in the "setting and date" section, with RS.

Andrevan wants to add more on the minority viewpoint, specifically from a scholar named Maurice Casey (note that nobody denies Casey is RS). Other editors almost unanimously (one exception) feel: (a) the question of date is already adequately covered, and (b) adding more about the minority view would unbalance coverage of the topic.

There's an important extra point: Casey's idea isn't just for an early (pre-70 AD) date, but for a very early one, about 50-60 AD. So far as I know he's the only scholar who holds this view. It's been pointed out to Andrevan that Casey's view has failed to gain traction in the academic community, but Andrevan's reply was that "academic traction" isn't a policy. My answer was that "traction" is indeed a policy, it's how we tell how much weight to give to different views.

Given that neither side has managed to convince the other, it seems that an edit war is looming - quite unnecessarily in my view.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on article talk page, otherwise no action - but Andrevan has now made a charge that all those who take a view opposite to his is a sock puppet/meat puppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PiCo) I don't mind saying I find this worrying if it means an escalation from a looming edit-war into warfare through wiki-lawyering.

How do you think we can help?

Can someone please look at the talk page and give us an opinion on how the Due Weight policy applies to the question of coverage of a minority viewpoint in general and the Casey viewpoint in particular.

Summary of dispute by Andrevan[edit]

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

I was introduced to this issue through the Mediation Committee as a mediator assigned to it. I am an atheist software engineer with no particular interest or knowledge of the subject area, but have since learned quite a bit about it.

We closed the mediation as successful but it appears that it is not resolved. Ret.Prof is the user who is pushing to include the minority theories in the article.

However, he persists in raising his complaint due to what I see as, at its root, a valid WP:NPOV issue with this article.

[This is a] violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV. It is true that these minority theories should probably not appear in the lead section of the article as Ret.Prof has requested. However, his opponents claim that including these reliably-sourced minority theories with significant adherents in the main article AT ALL, violates WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. There are a number of theories which pertain to the subject and are not linked at all from the main article: the Augustinian hypothesis, Griesbach hypothesis, Q+/Papias hypothesis, and Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Including no reference at all for the theories is not proportional to the fact that they do regularly appear in reliable sources about this topic. It has been suggested by Ret.Prof,

that these theories are associated with Jewish, non-religious and Eastern Orthodox perspectives into Western Christianity, leading to this incidence of bias. Maurice Casey, an academic with notable peer-reviewed publications, was a lapsed or non-Christian. Therefore this is an instance of systemic bias masquerading as a consensus, and reliable sources are being excluded at the expense of NPOV. Andrevan@ 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note I do not think there is a conspiracy. Systemic bias could arise simply by the self-reinforcing lack of NPOV on the part of a group of editors with blind spots. Andrevan@ 03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ret.Prof[edit]

Fringe: 50-60 CE date for Matthew WP:Fringe theories: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". Casey 2014. p 96 is as follows:

I conclude that the Gospel of Matthew is a major source for our knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus, written c. 50–60 ce.

WP:Fringe theories:To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Here again WP is clear! Such a topic is not fringe

There is nothing "new" about the 50 CE date. "Christian scholars" have argued in favor of it for years. What is new is a heavyweight Non-Christian historian now supporting it! Maurice Casey is a respected non-Christian scholar and for him come out in support of a 50-60 date for Matthew is notable. Such material MUST be written from a NPOV. This policy cannot be overruled even by a very large number of user accounts. Therefore the early 50 ce date must be included in the article on the Gospel of Matthew. As far as I am concerned, this is the only outstanding issue that has yet to be resolved...but it is an important one. IE Only ONE issue not TWO! Thanks!

  • For the record, my POV is that the Oral Tradition was both strong and accurate. The reason the Gospels and Talmud came into being was that this oral tradition Glenn 2014 of Jews and Christians was no longer viable after the destruction of the Temple 70 CE. Therefore I tend to believe in a later date. Still my trip to the library has shown many, many sources either support or make mention of the 50 CE proposed by Casey.
  • Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses! Casey is therefore a reliable source. Thanks
  • It is truly time to let go of our Hebrew /Aramaic Gospel debate and move on to the topic at hand. The issue before us is the earliest possible date for the Greek Gospel of Matthew. I have produced 7 reliable sources that state that that date was 50 CE. Therefore it must be given at least some weight and included in the article. I can produce many more RS if required.
  • The statement "with a pre-70 date having little support among secular scholars. [3]", is original research that misrepresents France who said, "A pre-70 date for Matthew remains a minority view, but one which has been strongly supported". See also France Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher pp 82-91. See also Williams I think you will agree he helps my case as he supports a date while the Temple is still standing (like Casey!). - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PiCo[edit]

Just restate and also expand on what I wrote above. There are two issues, not one as I stated previously, the two being the date of GM and its composition history. For both the relevant policy is NPOV, which says that NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So does the existing article represent "all significant views"? It says, re the date, that most scholars believe GM was composed after 70 CE and that a minority opinion holds it was before. This is supported by a RS and several others could be cited as well. Re composition history, there's an entire paragraph on authorship and another on sources, both thoroughly sourced.

Andrevan needs to demonstrate that Casey's opinion regarding the date (50 CE) is so significant that it can't be subsumed under a general statement. He also needs to demonstrate that the Augustinian and other hypotheses on the sources behind Matthew are equally significant. He also needs to demonstrate that any scholar at all supports the idea of an Aramaic or Hebrew original version of GM (he notes Casey and another scholar named Edwards, but has misunderstood what both are saying). PiCo (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by StAnselm[edit]

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

I personally hold to a pre-70 date for Matthew, but I acknowledge that it is a minority position. The early date in itself is not fringe, but a date of 50 possibly is. The connections made between Casey and an Aramaic gospel seem to be dubious, but in any case it would be better to quote someone like R. T. France, whose commentary has received more coverage in secondary sources. I don't think it would necessarily be undue weight to discuss the usual reasons for a pre-70 date: the dating of Luke-Acts and the lack of mention of the temple's destruction. However, a discussion of these reasons should be accompanied by a discussion of the reasons for the majority view. In other words, I would like to see the whole section expanded. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ignocrates[edit]

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

Andrevan is attempting to enforce what he sees as a WP:NPOV violation by shoehorning a tiny minority view into the article. The dispute began over an early date for the Gospel of Matthew proposed by Maurice Casey. Casey, while a notable scholar, has an idiosyncratic view of the Aramaic origins of Matthew. The majority of editors on the page consider an early date based on that unique conjecture to be WP:UNDUE. More seriously, Andrevan, who has admitted to knowing nothing about the subject, has recently introduced a number of new topics to include in the article, which he claims are being deliberately suppressed due to systemic bias. Ignocrates (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by some of the recent edits, so just to clarify: This dispute is not about an early date for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew as a minority view; we already have excellent sources that can provide that information (e.g., Dale Allison, R.T. France). The dispute is about assigning an early date to Matthew based on the unique conjecture advanced by Maurice Casey. Therefore, an early date as a minority view is not WP:UNDUE, but an early date based on Casey as a source is undue weight. That is the consensus position and the locus of the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rbreen[edit]

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

There have traditionally been New Testament writers, usually very conservative ones, who have argued for a pre-70 date for Matthew, largely because it supported the view of apostolic authorship. That idea died a death a generation ago - the consensus is now pretty much the one in the current article. The fact that a scholar like Casey can advance the idea of pre-70 authorship, completely separate from the traditional standpoint, is a sign of the maturity of the discussion. But so far it's just Casey, in a popular book, and until we find out whether the idea is taken seriously by academic writers we cannot pretend that this an academic running an idea up the flagpole. Personally, I have nothing against a pre-70 date - the consensus is a bit stale now, and could do with being challenged - but we can't predict where scholarship will go, and must stick with the picture as it is now. --Rbreen (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by In ictu oculi[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User:Guy Macon, that was my summary of the root of the dispute. The root of dispute is not that 1 New Testament scholar has a theory which has not gained any peer support. 1 scholar theories that fail to attract peer support belong in the scholar's bio article, not in article space competing for weight with views which have at least a minority of scholars. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by John Carter[edit]

I believe there is a very real chance that one of the central problems here is very likely behavioral but that this is not necessarily the correct forum to deal with that.

One of the basic and more obvious ways to determine whether or not a source is reliable is to determine what other academic sources say on the work in question regarding the subject at hand. One of the easiest ways to determine that is through reviews of the work. I haven't seen any reviews of this book in academic journals yet, although I think I have seen some listings of it in "Books Received" sections indicating reviews are likely in the future. I cannot see any real reason to rush to judgment regarding the academic views regarding this particular matter before we have seen the reviews. I said before that I thought the best way to proceed would be to first start an article on the book itself, and then try to determine how much space to give material regarding it elsewhere. I still think that would probably be the best way to go. There is of course another question regarding how many other single academics have presented other views on this topic, and whether they deserve the same amount of weight and consideration in the article. Given the number of subtopics of this article, it is very easy to see that it might potentially become just a set of short single sentences of the "X says Y" nature regarding many of the topics covered. When there are almost certainly literally hundreds of recent academic works on a given topic, "at least one" stated opinion on any issue will probably include dozens maybe hundreds of different ideas, and I don't think we can necessarily list them all.

Another major concern which I have regarding the status of our biblical material in general is the comparative lack of articles in wikipedia relative to the lengthy articles and subarticles in reference sources on biblical subjects. Having looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles, there is at least one substantively long named subsection on the date and authorship of the Gospel in one of the leading recent reference sources, and I have to say that I think it almost certain that a standalone article in wikipedia on the topic would be found to meet basic notability requirements, and that it would make much more sense to try to establish such a subarticle and develop it before attempting to effectively write the summary section of the article here. We do ourselves no favors by trying to shoehorn short mentions of every sub-subtopic related to Biblical subjects in one article, as doing so tends to make the articles lack any sort of desirable narrative flow and ultimately makes the articles less appealing to the readers it is supposed to serve. Sorry about the lengtht. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Evensteven[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIII[edit]

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

I wasn't involved as much in the Matthew debate. Maybe like three or four responses from me. I did not support Ret.Prof on Casey's views. Simply this, Casey is just one scholar. It wasn't enough to convince me, and I did some research; And there was little suggestion from other sources that agree or mentioned such similar ideals like Matthew first being written in Hebrew. The date of composition is arguable. There are many dates of composition online. A good average timeline of composition based on online sources would between 50 through 100 or 110 CE. It was rare though that I saw 50 CE being the actual date of composition in agreement with scholars. -- That's all -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu[edit]

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

Western scholarship against Eastern-Orthodox scholarship is a false dichotomy, since Bible scholars are not employed in the main US and European universities for their religious faith commitments, but for their historical expertise. I agree with PiCo's comments from the talk page of the article

Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-involved editor Jpacobb's comments[edit]

Although I am not directly involved in this specific discussion, it raises issues which have been concerning me for some time and the following comments may be helpful.

  1. The condition that "to be be notable a theory must be supported by at least one RS" seems to be a necessary condition, but not of itself sufficient. For example, John Allegro produced an theory about sacred mushrooms and the Eucharist. He was technically RS, but the idea met with total rejection from other academics and quickly became past history. Therefore, information about it was removed from the Wikipedia article.
  2. Editors should beware of "Phd-itis" (the need to produce some new and original ideas in order to make an academic name/career). It is only when theories are seriously discussed by other RS's, if only to be refuted, that they can be said to become notable. In the 1960-70s, if there was one agreed academic opinion on the Gospels, it was that "they were NOT biographies". In 1989 Richard A. Burridge produced a Ph.D. thesis that argued that they were ancient-style biographies. By about 1995 the thesis had been extensively discussed and was well on the way to becoming "a lasting contribution to scholarship" (Graham Stanton) (See What are the Gospels - 2nd Ed Eerdmans 2002, Cap 11 and Foreword) In short, academic impact or traction is necessary for a particular minority view of this type to qualify as worthy of "due attention". Jpacobb (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-involved editor Cwobeel's comments[edit]

(Not involved either, have some knowledge of the subject having studied Biblical criticism as a topic of interest, but I am not Christian.) NPOV guide us to include all significant viewpoints that have been reported in sources that can be verified, and that are reliable. A minority viewpoint can be presented as such (that is explaining in the text that it is a novel or not widely held viewpoint if there are sources that describe it as such), but extra care should be applied not to use Wikipedia to "promote" a minority view above its current standing in the domain in which that viewpoint is being expressed. Minority viewpoints are easy to spot using a number of available metrics, in this case one could use metrics related to the number of sources available, the number of citations in Google scholar, and other such. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Another point to remember, for those of us that are passionate about our views and want Wikipedia to reflect “the truth” is that Wikipedia does not need you - Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew discussion[edit]

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that everyone who is going to make an initial statement has done so by now. I am putting together a plan of attack for attempting to resolve this dispute and will open it up for discussion within a day.
Also, I have started using to check whether I have had any previous involvement in DRN cases I am involved in. I have never edited Gospel of Matthew, and I have had two minor interactions with editors named in this case. Please note that this it is not at all unusual for busy editors to have had some interactions.
Interaction with User:StAnselm: [6]
Interaction with User:In ictu oculi: [7]
I don't believe that either of these will cause me to be biased, but if anyone disagrees we should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
To give everyone an idea of where I am going with this before I open it up for discussion, I plan to start by looking at how the pages for the other three gospels handle dates of origin (including what is in the lead and what is in a lower section), with the door open to looking at other books of the Bible and possibly other religious and historical documents where only a range of dates is known. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Retartist on 06:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The central issue in this dispute revolves around WP:BLP, and WP:RS when one side of a dispute (The media) is attacking the other side; who is claiming that the media is corrupt. One side of the issue (the media and some notable people) are claiming that the WHOLE issue is mysogony and harassment while the other is claiming that this is about journalism ethics. On the talk page several users are insisting that little to no mention of ethics should be included and that per the sources the whole thing should be about mysogony and sexual harassment etc. The other side is claiming that, while harassment has happened; the issue is about the reliability and COI of the sources used. The talk page is littered with threads discussing the issue with SOME editors becoming very uncivil (claims of mysogony on the part of editors) when neutrality is brought up.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the issue on the talk page and then attempted to start a RFC (which was quickly shut down before any non-involved editor could comment)

How do you think we can help?

Bringing the discussion to a board to make sure people keep a level head, preventing the talk page from being clogged up and also preventing users from dis-engaging from the discussion because they disagree

Summary of dispute by PseudoSomething[edit]

I think the big problem with this article is the common voice vs the media. It is a very weird problem, where there is no head of the GamerGate movement, but we can see the targets of the 'Media corruption' writing articles that label this as Misogyny. Sadly, some of the articles used are biased (which isn't a bad thing), but some of them also have authors who have thrown extreme insults at the Pro-GG side (The Time Author), or have funded someone in the middle of the controversy (The New Yorker Author), and a few other problematic articles. While the Pro-GG side also will have biased articles, there are plenty of sources(Forbes, Slate, and many other sites) that I and others have rounded up and presented that fully show what caused the movement, what the movement is looking for (or at least the main points, since there is no head of the movement), and what has happened. We also have tangible results, such as ethics policy changes with Defy Media (The Escapist Magazine Owners), Destructoid, and Kotaku, as well as TFYC (a game jam for women) getting fully funded, while many of the anti_GG articles focus on the narrative of one person, many times over. Yet, all of these sources are being ignored, as you can tell.

While many sources presented show the movement is about Journalism ethics and other things, many people on the talk page still push the Misogyny side. By this I mean people saying "We are playing right into their narrative", people who are passionate and say things like "The massive quantity of libel and rage that this movement has generated. GamerGate got a few minor sites to try pacify them, and screwed up a whole lot of women's lives for absolutely no reason. That's the effect of your movement", and others just telling anyone trying to present evidence and articles for the Pro-GG side to "Shut Up". I honestly believe that the article currently is portraying wrong information over GamerGate, and it will be an issue that will persist because of the amount of people pushing the 'Hatred of Women' position. I honestly don't know a good remedy, since the sources have been brought and nothing has changed. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I need to add onto this after a few days of mainly watching. There has been a major movement of people who are clearly Anti-GG who are doing whatever they can to stop changes that may be positive to GG that come from RS'es. Many RS'es are being ignored on the claim of 'Whitewashing' the article, while these sources come from sites like Forbes. Those people have also been doing everything they can to revert any change that they do not like (not because it does not fit), as to tailor the article to their side. While Titanium Dragon has been topic banned, his post shows exactly the people who are doing it. This is causing the article to become stagnant, even with new RS'es being found. To also add onto that, WP:CONTROVERSY relates to this article, and it does not follow "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." PseudoSomething (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Masem[edit]

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

It's not an issue WP can deal with. When you have one side (the proGG side) that is fragmented without a clear voice, and where a few have opted to harass and attack other people, no reputable media is going to find sympathy in that. As such, all reliably-sourced articles on GamerGate (such as the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Telegraph) all have to start that GG arose from what appears to be a misogyny-driven attack on specific game devs. That said, several also try to get into the more rational side of the proGG side, explaining their position of wanting journalistic integrity and other reasonable points of discussion. So the article should (and does, presently) go into the idea about these other reasons, that they've been boiling in the game fandom for years, and with the combination of the attacks on the game devs and the media response, is trying to be pushed out with a louder voice. The media just have not fully seen that voice, again due to the fractured nature of the proGG aspect and the fact that there are still people harassing the various targets of this. We can cover it, we cannot take the position that GG is 100% about misogynist harassment, but we also cannot hide that fact or bury it in the weaker claims about the other facets the proGG side want to cover. I beliee the article in its present lock-downed position attempts to make this argument properly without trying to skew what actually happen, irregardless how ugly it was. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To add one bit here: there's two core aspects of what GG is about: the misogyny of a portion of the gaming community that turned to harassment (few question this), and the questions of journalism ethics based on the initial accusation that Quinn had a relationship with a journalist as to gain positive reviews. What the problem that we have is whether that question of journalism ethics started in earnest before the massive media attention on the subject, or as a result. Not to say that the supposed logs that Quinn has are true or valid, but they raise the question that some in the media consider that the ethics arguments arose to cover up for the mess that those engaging in harassing were doing; unfortunately the documentation of the events from the point of the first accusation against Quinn to where the media gained significant interest is mostly undocumented (outside of going to unusable source). It's clear the journalism ethics part is now a part of GG, but what a number of editors want is to put that first and foremost when there is no clear evidence that was the reason GG expanded as much as it did, while the misogyny and harassment side (and fallout from that) certainly did contribute. The best we can do is avoid getting into all specific allegations and discussing the analysis of why we got here sooner than later (in which the concerns of gamers can be brought up in a favorable debate light). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ryulong[edit]

Masem hits the nail on the head. It is not the fault of the users reported here that the sources for the subject only tell what Retartist (and other pro-GamerGate editors that have been disrupting the talk page) define as one side of the debate because that's all that's out there for the topic and the other point of view desired in the article cannot be found in what Wikipedia deems as reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to Titanium Dragon: because it's a non-issue and NPOV was not brought up in this discussion. Now stop forum shopping because you have a hearing problem. Now as per Red Pen of Doom, I refuse to participate in this any urther.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

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

This is quite simply an issue where the reliable sources are effectively unanimous in saying something. Given that fact, we are required by policy to present that as the predominant viewpoint in the encyclopedia. The above user, and others, have complained that literally every mainstream media source from Time to the Washington Post to NPR's Marketplace is somehow "biased" and unusable, and would have us use YouTube videos, dubious gaming blogs and Photoshopped screenshots instead. This we cannot do, obviously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The below statement by TitaniumDragon is a perfect example of the crux of the issue; users are refusing to accept reliable sources and claiming that we must ignore what the reliable sources say because they are somehow "biased."

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

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

Dispute resolution by the named parties will be useless as the flood of new SPAs will continue to come in who, like the filer, are oblivious (and hostile) to the understanding of WP:UNDUE that we need to present the subject as the mainstream reliable sources see it, not as gamergaters wish it to be perceived. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And I am not going to waste my time beating the dead horse on this page as well as the main page. Decline to participate in a pointless exercise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TitaniumDragon[edit]

user:NorthBySouthBaranof, user:Ryulong, and user:Tarc have been involved in a long campaign of intimidation and POV pushing on this article and Zoe Quinn. user:TheRedPenOfDoom is a more recent entrant.

Unfortunately, Masem is simply incorrect; I have repeatedly cited reliable sources which state otherwise. The Bright Side of News, Forbes, Digitimes, The Telegraph, and others which note that claims that the whole dispute about misogyny is, in fact, a straw man argument set forth by Zoe Quinn and her supporters, and that the actual issues are many and varied, but primarily have to do with gamers feeling bullied and insulted, and feeling that the gaming media is corrupt, and that they are being censored. Indeed, there is presently a DDOS attack going on against one of the participants, as well as an organized campaign of censorship by some of the journalists involved, including at Kotaku. One of the major mainstream articles written on the subject matter, in Time magazine, was written by someone who worked for Kotaku and had a conflict of interest, and indeed was targeted by the campaign because she was involved in both video games journalism and PR for video game developers, which is a conflict of interest for obvious reasons. The article in The New Yorker shows no signs of fact checking, and seems to be entirely reliant on a single, involved source - Zoe Quinn - for its information. And indeed, this is a common issue; there are articles which take a more detached view of it and there are articles which are advocating very strongly for Zoe Quinn and don't show much, if any, sign of fact checking, frequently repeating false or erroneous claims sourced to Quinn herself. Given the entire scandal started because of Zoe Quinn's press contacts, obviously there are some WP:RS issues here, as well as some issues with systemic bias; even still, though, there are plenty of articles which note the GamerGate supporters' point of view.

Zoe Quinn's point of view - and the harassment - are indeed major issues, and need to be discussed in the article. However, as-is, it does not present "the other side" (or really, sides) at all. It is unacceptably biased and gives a massive amount of space to Zoe Quinn's point of view and issues of harassment of Zoe Quinn and her supporters, when she and her supporters have been involved in the same, as noted in RSs, as well as the censorship and attempted censorship of the issue, which has again been noted in RSs. As there are a number of RSs which present a much more neutral point of view on the issue, we should be using those, and we need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE notice to Zoe Quinn - contrary to her claims, it isn't all about her, and several sites have actually changed their ethics policies as a result of the scandal.

Several of the users involved have referred to anyone who disagrees with them in a derogatory fashion, with Ryulong describing them as virgins, Tarc calling them misogynists, and TRPOD repeatedly closing discussions and claiming consensus and insulting other users with claims that they are POV pushing, as well as threatening users with bans in order to intimidate them, something they have been called on before by @Tom991:. This behavior is habitual in some cases. I just became aware of this because I was going through and looking for instances of past behavior for a potential ANI; I found this because, ironically, the notice had been deleted.

user:Ryulong and user:Masem both deleted my attempts at adding the NPOV tag to the article, despite having already commented here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Diego Moya[edit]

It is undeniable that the majority of the reliable sources have linked the attacks to misogyny, and the totality of them have covered the harassment angle. Still, we are not doing our best in the way we're using them to write the article, and the outcome is nothing to be proud of - certainly not the best we can achieve. There is lots of work to do to create an article that can be read by a reasonable reader from either side of the conflict and conclude that it's written in a fair way, but it will need the collaboration from everybody involved without constantly second-guessing the motives of editors at the other side.

Defenders of the Reliable Sources (that's DRS'ers for you) need to stop treating them as Gospel and recognize that they're written by fallible human beings, and thus everything written in them must be subject to scrutiny before -or even after- accepting them in the article; this means you must stop criticizing editors who want to put the references through such scrutiny. Those defending the GamerGate (GG'ers) side while trying in good faith to improve the article, must understand that Wikipedia is primarily a record of information available in mainstream sources which have been producing reliable content before the incident started, so it's natural that some angles and points of view get excluded, until people whose criteria we can trust adopt those points of view; this means that some aspects of the incident will be excluded because of our editorial line. (Those in bad faith can go read Encyclopedia Dramatica, where they will find a version covering all the "silenced facts" so it should be much more to their liking - or not?).

The idea that "we can't help having a biased article if all the reliable sources are biased" is, pardon me, bullshit. The problem is not merely for lack of sources, but how they're used to imply that what is included in the sources is WP:THE TRUTH. There's too much Truth-pushing at both sides, though fortunately there's also a few voices calling for keeping a level head. We know we shouldn't represent the views of external sources as ours, yet that's how many try to present them - and I mean people from both sides. We must all perform an exercise in self assessment and reflect whether we're engaging in constructive debate with proper mood and tone, including myself.

We proud ourselves that Wikipedia content represents the view from reliable sources have written without engaging in the controversies themselves. So let's write an article that represents the view from reliable sources but doesn't adopt them as Wikipedia's voice, but as the documentary record of what those sources have said, registered in a clinically detached tone. Diego (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kaldari[edit]

Now that the GamerGate hordes have been kicked off of Reddit, 4chan, and everywhere else, they have descended on the one place that will take 6 months to decide to get rid of them: Wikipedia. Right now, there is a strong push by several tendentious SPAs and numerous anon IPs to completely whitewash the GamerGate article. They would like the harassment aspects to be downplayed or removed and the original (though discredited) ethics accusations put front and center. Unfortunately, the reliable sources do not support their POV, so instead they are claiming that the media itself is biased and should be largely ignored. Titanium Dragon and Retardist have been especially tendentious, opening thread after thread on the talk page with the same essential arguments. Titanium Dragon was one of the main original authors of the article and its main defender at AfD. At the time, the article was basically a Zoe Quinn assassination-piece. When the media started debunking the claims against Zoe Quinn and focusing on the harassment campaign, Titanium Dragon suddenly decided that recentism was an important policy and argued against including mention of harassment in the lead. Now that it is clear that the controversy is primarily about harassment, Titanium Dragon, Retartist, and others are determined to whitewash the article through exhaustive arguing, since the policies don't support their POV-pushing. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:GamerGate discussion[edit]

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

Hello, User:PseudoSomething, User:Masem, User:Ryulong, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Diego Moya, and User:Kaldari. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have read the talk page discussion and the individual summaries of dispute; since all users have made their comments, I will be opening this case. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. We are aiming to establish an agreeable consensus. Secondly, please respect all parties involved and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct. Issues concerning user conduct, including accusations of pushing a particular POV, should be taken elsewhere. Please also be noted that User:Titanium Dragon has been indefinitely banned from the topic, and will not be able to participate in this discussion.

With this noted, let us move onto the discussion. I think there are two crux to this debate, the reliability of sources and due weight for the viewpoints. Feel free to point it out if I'm mistaken. Since due weight can only be judged after determining reliable sources, I wish to start with the first point. I am under the impression that the sources are being questioned about the second and third criterion of WP:SOURCE (Second being the reliability of the creator, the third being about the publisher of the work). Whether the sources themselves are WP:BIASED or not seems to be outside the scope of this discussion, as that will fall under due weight; the only question is whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used. Please discuss below. KJ Discuss? 04:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As I state above, I am not participating in this sham perpetuated by the gamer diaspora from 4chan and Reddit. The claims of unreliability are not founded and are simply attempts to get the article to push a fringe view that does not appear in reliable sources because of the nature of the holders of that view point not being centralized. Good day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand we have the obviously biased corporate media who are circling the wagons in a cowardly last-ditch effort to keep the thin veil of secrecy over their shameful traditions of back-scratching, nepotism, extortion, cronyism, bribery, and sexual favors. Sources like: The Washington Post, The Week, The Boston Globe, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, Wired, The Indian Express, The Independent, On the Media, Vox Media, Asian Age, The Herald Sun, Pacific Standard, PC Magazine, Time Magazine, and The New York Times.
On the other hand, we have the maverick grassroots media that are trying against all odds to get The Truth heard by the masses, and to shatter the wall of censorship and propaganda that has propped up the crumbling edifice of old-style journalism for too long. Sources like: Viral Global News, APGNation,, and MetalEater, along with countless blogs and discussion groups.
Hopefully this makes the situation more clear. Kaldari (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, the approach followed to assessing the reliability of sources has been questionable. So far, only sources from the traditional press have been used to establish the relative importance of points of views, but using only those is not strictly a requirement of WP:RS policy. In particular, the requirement that sources keep a good record of fact-checking has been misapplied when it comes to opinions; all sources are reliable for statements about their own opinions, and several editors above have acknowledged that excluding those opinions creates a biased result. The solution should be easy - include prominent opinions pertaining to the pro-GamerGate side that can be deemed as reliably documenting that point of view, and attributed to their authors under WP:RSOPINION. This is not a call to remove the coverage of harassment and misogyny from their current prominent place in the article, but to expand the article in other directions that we know are also highly pertinent, using those sources that have covered it and we can verify ourselves as accurate. Diego (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The question under discussion is what sources can be considered reliable. Please be noted that the inclusion of material on Wikipedia should be based on Verifiability, not truth. Following the definition of source per WP:SOURCE, the type, creator, and publisher all affects reliability. User:Kaldari, be noted that the intentions of the news sources appear to be irrelevant to this discussion; Wikipedia should be 'representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (WP:NPOV).' My question right now is, are the so-called 'traditional sources' reliable? If not, why not? Not biased, or having other intentions, but just reliable. KJ Discuss? 05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I see generalist news sources as reliable for establishing the point of view of people from gaming journalism and game developers. They are also reliable for identifying relevant actors from both sides of the divide, whose opinions are thus significant to be heard. So far, only the opinions from the anti-GamerGate people have been included under RS:OPINION; I'm proposing that we use the news sources to identify significant people from the pro-GamerGate side, to include the opinion of those vocal people as one of the points of view that must be covered under WP:NPOV. Don't forget that the nature of the statements in the article also affects the reliability of the sources used to support them. Opinions from people from the Pro side can and should included as reliable and significant for statements in the article that document their respective POVs. Diego (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As a neutral voice who wants to see this topic fairly covered from both sides, can I ask every editors to refrain from employing genetic fallacy to back up their points like this? Kindly consider. (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi KJ. Basically what we have going on is a common voice vs a media controversy. The controversy started with a hashtag called #gamergate that has differing stories of how it came about. On the Gamergate side, we have sources such as Forbes, Slate, digitimes (A pure outsider source), Vox, Townhall, and Aljazeera, to name a few since I would want to site them all, who say that gamergate is about gamers wanting higher ethics and less corruption in gaming journalism, as well as a few stating they want less political push. Most of these sources are currently being shoved aside. The other side of the coin is the media saying that gamergate is a harrassment campaign focused on sexism and misogyny, mostly taking the work of one currently high profile person. For the side of the coin that is fighting for ethics, we can see actual results that are being brushed aside in in sentence, which is that the sites Polygon and Kotaku changed their ethics policies, as well as Defy Media (owners of the Espcaist) and Destructoid also reviewing and changing their policies.

Now, to focus on your statement of "whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used", I believe many of the harassment/misogyny ones fall under the problem of taking the word of one currently high profile person with very little backing up her statements, instead of look at the results drive ethics and corruption side. To back up the extremely unreliable sources though, is to look at the Times article and the New Yorker Article. The Times writer wrote an article also on Gamasutra, and spit out a very nasty, curse filled insult at anyone who supported #gamergate. The New Yorker writer had been funding someone who was a journalist in the thick of the mess, and as soon as the article was published, he immediately hid his Patreon, to hide the fact. To add to this (and it is much more speculative than concrete), is that many gaming journalism sites would not cover the ethics and corruption story, only to focus on harassment, which was shown in some leaked emails from a gaming journalism email list. Then we have what companies own what, but that is all up in the air.

Now to add onto fact checking, which is what Diego touched on, is that again, many sources rely on one person's word for the whole issue. They do not take into account what is happening on twitter, prominent discussion forums, or results from the movement such as policy changes. These are all -easily- looked at, yet are not reported on to keep the issue skewed to one side. That is the big problem with this article, is that it is ignoring any pro-gamergate articles and only focusing on negative gamergate articles (look at the last edits, any negative ones are allowed, positive are always reverted), and the article in no way follows the very well written essay at WP:CONTROVERSY. (Forgive me if I reference anything I shouldn't, still learning some of the guidelines. Also, my sources a few days old, and I have not looked for newer sources, since I have tried to stay away until the DNR because of anxiety and work).PseudoSomething (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is, quite simply, your claim that there is something called "the common voice" and that this "common voice" is uniformly in favor of Gamergate is not supported by reliable sources. In fact, the reliable sources repeatedly note that this is an issue which has hotly divided people on both sides. You cannot make the claim that everyone who is not in mainstream media supports Gamergate. That's simply not credible and not sourced.
Twitter and discussion forums are not reliable sources and they are specifically and most clearly unacceptable for claims about living people. It is prohibited, by policy, to use them in Wikipedia articles relating to living people. Thusly, you may as well stop discussing them here because we cannot and will not use them. Dispute-resolution discussion cannot override black-letter policy.
Please immediately stop suggesting that Quinn is misrepresenting the harassment she has been subjected — it is indisputable, based on the overwhelming weight of reliable sources, that she has been the target of a major harassment campaign described variously in these reliable sources as "a cavalcade of threats," a "flood of threats," "reams of appalling threats and abuse online," "unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment," "nothing short of an online form of terrorism," "poisonous abuse," "a torrent of unfathomable outrage," "a horrible rain of rape threats," "a vicious and ugly online backlash," "a wave of rape and death threats," etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Below is a list of indisputably reliable secondary sources — not a single one of which is a video-games-only publishing outlet — that address this controversy in the context of harassment, culture wars and trolling:
The only retort to this list of sources has been that all of these reliable sources are unusably biased. Which is effectively a conspiracy theory, has no grounding in anything resembling Wikipedia policy and must be discarded outright as any sort of point of rational debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Dispute-resolution discussion cannot override black-letter policy. I don't want to address anything else in your comment right now, but I feel it appropriate to remind everybody that this is strictly *not true*, and we have abundant policy establishing the contrary. If there's a place where policy can be bent, interpreted or, yes, plainly ignored is at dispute resolution. Rather than trying to push policy as it's written and trying to enforce it as given law, we'd better off using this forum to assess how each particular policy instructions are good ideas that may or may not apply here in order to improve the article, in a way that all may agree with even if they don't like it in full - i.e., to *build* consensus. Diego (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) (And please don't bring up Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS, because it's about something else entirely - Wikiprojects overriding style guidelines for large areas, and it couldn't invalidate WP:Ignore All Rules anyway). Diego (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really see a controversy here about the reliability of the sources. User:PseudoSomething, you stated that the mainstream news sources did not do fact-checking, but that's impossible to know. The news sites could be intentionally skewing the issue or considering that the twitter and discussion on the blogs are not worth reporting on. Unless a reliable source actively assert this, the accusations are unfortunately WP:OR. In any case, I think that everyone could agree that mainstream news have reported both sides of the debate, even if this was to endorse a particular side. Consequently, is it agreeable that the article should mention both sides of the debate? Arguments on both sides can be incorporated into the article by attributing it to particular spokesperson (or group) for each respective side. (Putting aside due weight for now) Is this agreeable? KJ Discuss? 10:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, there are effectively undisputed facts that are and should be presented in Wikipedia's voice — for example, the statement that the controversy centers around sexism and misogyny in video games. The list of sources I posted is for that exact reason — it demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources discuss the issue in the context of sexism and misogyny, and we cannot "set aside" due weight because due weight is the very center of this issue.
There is no one arguing that reliably-sourced arguments from the other side should be completely excluded. However, those arguments are a distinct minority in reliable sources, and due weight demands that we treat them as a minority viewpoint. The dispute stems from the claim that we should exclude or discount a large number of those reliable sources based on the nebulous and groundless claims of "bias," and that we should be required to accept a number of borderline or outright-unusable sources, many of which are being proposed to support derogatory claims about living people, which obviously violates the biographies of living persons policy.
And that is a baseline beyond which I will simply not go — if your idea here, Diego, is that this dispute resolution discussion is going to propose that we use unreliable sources to source claims about living people, then I will withdraw from this dispute resolution and it can be closed as moot, because that is quite literally unacceptable and I will have nothing further to do with such a proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The whole point of the dispute is that what is "reliable" and "unreliable" should be open to debate, because there are reasoned arguments to be made about the reliability of available sources, but the edit-warriors have been enforcing a particular interpretation mostly without engaging in such debate. For instance, there are points made by the less established but professional sources that are *not* affected by BLP, because they describe behaviors found in the gaming press as a whole. Are you going to engage in conversation about the core of the dispute as presented, or are you going to reinstate your position without ever listening to the arguments brought by the other side? Because if the latter, there's certainly no point in this exercise. Diego (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but is reliability an attribute that, once given to a particular news outlet, applies with blanket range to every articles that are published by said outlet? Because I'm pretty sure WP:IRS says otherwise. Regarding news organizations, WP:IRS states: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis". WP:IRS also states: "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues.", so I think the sources given here should be put under scrutiny to assess reliability and detect republished content. (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and read each and every one of the sources presented above if you wish. Literally none of them are republished stories. Go for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
More in clarification on NBSB's point: we have one side of the GG debate that may be held by thousands of gamers, but they lack any type of coherence that makes it clear what their position really is. (This is looking past the sources for the moment). There seems to be a cry for more journalism ethics, but what specifically? No one really has a good feel for the shape of what the gamers want in this debate, and that makes it very difficult for the media to report on this. Add in that some of this came from 4chan, which most mainstream press will shrug off as a group with any type of valid point. Add in that a small portion of that group turned to hostile tactics to try to make their point. There's a good reason why the mainstream press (not gaming sources) have failed to really cover that side of issue. I am aware that certain individuals have tried to step forward to explain what the gamers want but the initial problems with that side being tainted for media coverage may be preventing that side from being covered in any legitimate depth, in contrast to the gaming journalism side that have well documented what issues they've seen. Mainstream media has tried to reiterate some of the basic things that gamers seem to be concerned about, but they haven't given the same care as they have to the journalism side. --MASEM (t) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There are actually a few RS'es who state that the skew in media is fabricated. / Slate states "These articles share some traits in common besides their theses: They are unconvincing, lacking in hard evidence, and big on wishful thinking.", Techraptor had an interview with an indie developer that said "Trying to argue that gamers are generally misogynists or don’t want women playing games was so over the top, so absurd and so contrary to reality that people started to recognize them for what they are: Garden variety bullies." (There are a few more interviews with different people in the industry who state that), Digitimes states "However, this attempt to paint the angry gamers as a bunch of sexist, homophobic, racist males who were raging at being forced to "become politically correct" was rapidly rebuked by females, homosexuals, transsexuals and other minorities who all consider themselves gamers in the thousands using the Twitter hashtag #notyourshield.". While there isn't an article over it specifically, it has been stated and hinted at that much of those claims are false, or at least majorly overblown to create an enemy. To your point though, yes, we have more than enough RS'es explaining the Pro-GG side, we have enough to follow WP:CONTROVERSY, that writes to let the group explain themselves. At the moment, if you look at the article, much of it is 'Claims', 'He said she said', and other non-sourced assertions that reads more like an opinion piece than a wikipedia article. PseudoSomething (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
What those three articles seem to be arguing is that the "gamers are dead" argument is wrong; the "gamers are dead" argument isn't the focus of our article, so I'm not sure what you mean it refutes.
Also not sure what you mean by "non-sourced assertion," because effectively everything in the article is sourced, and scrupulously so. We're even inline-sourcing everything in the lede even though The Devil's Advocate's rewrite omitted them per WP:LEDE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just come back from a break- there seems to be a lot happening and ill need to catch up. But why in the article is there an excessively long section on "the misogyny"? seems a little excessive... Retartist (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a change in style that would make it easier on the eyes without affecting its weight. I'll posit it in the article's talk page later to see if the idea gets traction. Diego (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to look at what has been removed because of BLP reasons. Most of them have been appropriate, but remember that it's possible to game this - using "removed per WP:BLP" as a trump card in a content dispute to remove information inconvenient to your point-of-view. I was surprised to see so many deletions even from the talk page, maybe I just don't know enough about the topic but not all of them seemed controversial or like serious allegations. The BLP bar should be lower on the talk page - so it's possible to discuss different sources and whether they comply with policies. Let's keep the bad sources at bay, but remember that we are detailing a controversy - not everything on the other side of the controversy can be thought as BLP-removable allegations. --Pudeo' 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of sources[edit]

Before continuing, let's talk about the reliability of the sources being used. There appears to be a consensus that published sources in the 'mainstream' media can be used to describe all the facts in this case. Unreliable sources are, well, unreliable and cannot be used to attribute assertions. Both sides have been described in the mainstream media, albeit with different due weight. Is this agreeable? If there is a consensus about the reliability of the sources, we will move on to discuss due weight in the article. Please answer in the scope of this question. KJ Discuss? 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius#Reasonable foresight[edit]

Pictogram voting keep-green.svg Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by HelenOnline on 06:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC).

Talk:Artificial intelligence[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by CharlesGillingham on 16:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:FelixRosch wants to change the definition of artificial intelligence to include the term "human" or "human-like" in first paragraph of the article. Leading AI researchers and the most popular AI textbooks specifically object to defining the field in terms of human intelligence. (See the discussion page for sources and details; for now, just be aware that there were very strong feelings about this within the field in the 70s and 80s and today AI defines itself as studying "intelligent agents", which is a more general definition than the one FelixRosch insists upon.)

I removed FelixRosch's contribution, some time ago, but it keeps reappearing. I posted a detailed argument on the talk page, which has bloomed in a discussion where we are talking past each other. He does not seem to be reading my posts. I asked him to stop re-adding his contribution until we could resolve the dispute. But nevertheless he persists in adding it, and thus we are slowly edit-warring. The dispute is reasonably civil but tedious. Your help would be appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page. Comments on particular edits.

How do you think we can help?

I have never been in a dispute that couldn't be sorted out with time, civility and sources before. What are the options?

Summary of dispute by FelixRosch[edit]

User:CharlesG is welcome to try to bring in any cited material which he wishes to in order to support the highly generalized version of the Lede sentence which he appears to want to support. Until you bring in that material, WP:MoS is clear that the Lede is only supposed to summarize material which exists in the main body of the article. User:CharlesG keeps referring abstractly to multiple references on the article Talk page which he is familiar with, and continues not to bring them into the main body of the article first. WP:MoS requires that you develop your material in the main body of the article before you summarize it in the Lede section. Without that material you cannot support an overly generalized version of the Lede sentence. The article in its current form, in all eight (8) of its opening sections is oriented to human-like intelligence (Sections 2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.8). Also, the fourth paragraph in the Lede section now firmly states that the body of the article is based on human intelligence as the basis for the outline of the article and its contents. According to WP:MoS for the Lede, your new material must be brought into the main body of the article prior to making generalizations about it which you wish to place/support in the Lede section. FelixRosch (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon[edit]

It appears that the primary issue is whether to include the word "human-like" in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lede. I have proposed on the talk page that this be decided by a Request for Comments rather than by mediation-like dispute resolution. If there are any other issues that are persistent, maybe mediation-like dispute resolution may be in order. Are there any other issues, or is an RFC on the lede sufficient? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Artificial intelligence discussion[edit]

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

 Clerk note: I have notified FelixRosch (talk · contribs) of the discussion. --Acetotyce (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Traxon Technologies[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rimsky.cheng on 09:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC).