This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 18 January 2015 (→Summary of dispute by Cirt: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:44, 18 January 2015 by Cirt (talk | contribs) (→Summary of dispute by Cirt: add)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request dispute resolution
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
Become a volunteer
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages 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:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Autism | In Progress | Oolong (t) | 27 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 4 hours | Oolong (t) | 2 days, 2 hours |
| Imran Khan | In Progress | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 21 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 15 hours | WikiEnthusiast1001 (t) | 17 hours |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | On hold | Abo Yemen (t) | 16 days, 2 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 10 days, 6 hours | Abo Yemen (t) | 10 days, 6 hours |
| Habte Giyorgis Dinagde | Closed | Jpduke (t) | 10 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 5 hours |
| Movement for Democracy (Greece) | In Progress | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 7 days, 3 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 1 days, | Rambling Rambler (t) | 20 hours |
| Urartu | New | Bogazicili (t) | 1 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 hours | Bogazicili (t) | 3 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Battle of_Nanking
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by CurtisNaito on 08:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- CurtisNaito (talk · contribs)
- Yaush (talk · contribs)
- TH1980 (talk · contribs)
- Miracle dream (talk · contribs)
- MtBell (talk · contribs)
- Carrotkit (talk · contribs)
- Cwek (talk · contribs)
- Happyseeu (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The article on the Battle of Nanking contains one section on the Nanking Massacre. Most seem to want to include some sort of estimate range here for how many people were killed during the massacre but we can't decide which estimates are worth including or what range to use.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive talk page discussion but it doesn't seem like we are reaching consensus.
How do you think we can help?
I'm looking for advice on that matter. Maybe a group of neutral users, after evaluating both points of view, should suggest a good solution. For instance, a fair compromise advocated from the outside might be more likely to attract consensus. I've been putting forward some ideas for compromise on the talk page, but they haven't garnered much discussion yet and I want to discuss more options to reach agreement.
Summary of dispute by CurtisNaito
I, the primary contributor to the Battle of Nanking article, was proposing that, for the purposes of this article, 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims is the primary range of death toll estimates we should use because that is the current scholarly consensus on the issue. To quote Bob Tad Wakabayashi, a expert historian on the subject of the Nanking Massacre, "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000." When reviewing Wakabayashi's edited volume, James Leibold concurred that 40,000 to 200,000 constitutes "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". By contrast the large majority of scholars who have put forward numbers outside this range are non-specialists who have never revealed how they calculated their estimates. Even historians in China privately acknowledge that the death toll of the atrocity was between 40,000 and 150,000. The alternative range being put forward by other users is 40,000 to 300,000 but this range is based on an unusual synthesis which I would definitely say is not appropriate by Misplaced Pages standards. This range was composed by combining the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000 with several other sources of dubious validity which gave numbers between 200,000 and 300,000. It seems wrong to me to create a new estimate range by randomly combining the scholarly consensus with a couple of larger numbers explicitly rejected by the scholarly consensus. For further proof and information on the situation, see the extended version of my statement at the bottom of this post which summarizes the posts I have made in the talk page.
However, if the clear scholarly consensus of specialist historians is not alone enough, the possibilities for compromise that occur to me are the following...
-stating in the article that "Today historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in total,(cite Wakabayashi and Leibold here) but higher and lower estimates also exist.(insert footnote here)" Then tack on a very lengthy footnote with more estimates.(Note that currently Kaz Ross is cited in the body of the text, but the range given by Ross is actually 40,000 to 150,000 so if we create a footnote we can move the Ross citation down there rather than sticking it together with the sources which give a 40,000 to 200,000 range.)
-stating in the main body only that estimates vary and then inserting a lengthy footnote with ALL estimates listed in order of size from smallest to greatest, plus maybe an additional note that 40,000 to 200,000 has been described as the "empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range".
-including no estimate of the death toll at all.
-taking the scholarly consensus range of 40,000 to 200,000 and extending it upwards and downwards to reach 10,000 to 400,000. (Incidentally though, the widest possible range would be zero to ten million.)
| 40,000 to 200,000 is the current scholarly consensus (extended version) |
|---|
|
For the purposes of this article, I advocate that we just stick to the most recent scholarly consensus range of 40,000 to 200,000 victims of the Nanking Massacre, both civilians and POWs, within the Nanking Special Administrative District. Here at some length is the proof that this is in fact the consensus, as well as some other significant issues.
In 2007 Bob Tad Wakabayashi wrote a very well-received edited volume entitled "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" which amalgamated the work of a large number of the leading specialist scholars who have studied the Nanking Massacre. In writing the conclusion of this book, Wakabayashi states that 40,000 to 200,000 civilians and POWs massacred is the scholarly valid range of estimates. Even though he expresses some personal disagreement with some of the estimates within this range, he still notes that any estimate within this range is at least numerically possible. To quote Wakabayashi: "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000." When reviewing this book in the academic journal Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, James Leibold concurred that 40,000 to 200,000 constitutes "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". Wakabayashi's argument is further bolstered by the fact that almost all scholars outside of China who have written books or peer-reviewed article on the Nanking Massacre have given figures somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000. Akira Fujiwara(200,000), Tokushi Kasahara(160,000-170,000), Katsuichi Honda(over 100,000), Yoshida Yutaka(over 100,000), Jean-Louis Margolin(50,000-90,000), Ikuhiko Hata(40,000), and David Askew(roughly 40,000) are a few good examples.
On the other hand, 40,000 to 200,000 cannot be said to be the scholarly consensus within China, where all historians advocate numbers of 300,000 or higher. However, in China there is some gap between the public views of historians, which are tightly censored, and their private views.(For examples of censorship see Wakabayashi's essay in "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38") In 2006 when historian Kaz Ross investigated the real opinions of Chinese historians in the city of Nanking on an anonymous basis, all of them gave figures between 40,000 and 150,000. They told Ross that saying this openly "would be detrimental to their careers". Ross' study provides further evidence that the approximate range of 40,000 to 200,000 is a broad-based international consensus that has successfully united almost all specialist scholars in the field.
Among scholars who advocate figures lower than 40,000 or higher than 200,000, the large majority are non-specialists who have not calculated their own estimates. I have been told repeatedly that Edward L. Dreyer and Marvin Williamsen believe figures over 200,000, but neither of them has ever written more than a paragraph about the massacre in their entire careers. Furthermore, none of these non-specialist scholars have ever said how they calculated their figures, and I don't think an estimate which is not known to be based on any data should be considered part of the scholarly consensus of specialists. Odds are that most of these scholars just copied their death toll estimates ad verbatim from the verdicts of the two postwar war crimes trials, the IMTFE and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal. However, this sort of copying and pasting from a single primary source is not equivalent to the level of research carried out by the historians who have written whole books or peer-reviewed articles on the massacre which actually do explain how the death toll was calculated. For the purposes of an article on the Battle of Nanking we should not use old, outdated estimates from the 1940's which have been supplanted by better scholarship. Many recent works of scholarship, including Wakabayashi's edited volume "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" have heavily rebutted the dubious methods and evidence used by the postwar war crimes trials for calculating their figures. Furthermore, if we just take the raw estimates from the post-war war crimes trials, it would be difficult to decide which ones to use. The IMTFE variously described the death toll as "upwards of 100,000" or "over 200,000". The Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put out total figures as low as 227,680 and as high as 430,000. Basically, we can't stuff the article on the Battle of Nanking full of every unreliable estimate ever made for the death toll of the Nanking Massacre.
The users Miracle Dream and MtBell have inserted the following text into the article "Estimates of the death count vary, with most reliable sources holding that 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians were massacred in this period." However, look at the sources they use to create this range. The first source is Wakabayashi's edited book on the Nanking Massacre, which gives the range of 40,000 to 200,000. Wakabayashi explains in detail using sources like burial data, eyewitness accounts, and Japanese military records why this is the empirically possible range of estimates. The second source is Leibold, who reaffirms Wakabayashi's estimate. The third source is a Christian Science Monitor article, which says that the death toll was 300,000. It contains no citations and does not say how the figure of 300,000 was calculated. The fourth source is an essay on the Second Sino-Japanese War by Marvin Williamsen, who quotes an estimate made by US military officer Frank Dorn in a 1974 book that the death toll was over 200,000 and possibly 300,000. However, Dorn's book has no citations and does not say how he calculated his figures. Is it really appropriate to take Wakabayashi's "empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range" of 40,000 to 200,000 and then simply add on to it two figures which Wakabayashi says are NOT empirically verifiable and scholarly valid. It seems like synthesis. It is true that there are some real Nanking Massacre scholars who have put forward figures above or below 40,000 to 200,000. Takeshi Hara, for instance, is a very well regarded Japanese historian and the author of many peer-reviewed articles on the massacre who believes 20,000 to 30,000 were massacred. But this is just an article on the Battle of Nanking, which doesn't have space for every estimate of the death toll ever made. For the purposes of this article, we should stick to what the majority of specialist historians say, 40,000 to 200,000. To quote another user, "Figures as high as 300,000 or as low as 10,000 are of historiographic interest only and, while they might be discussed on that basis on the Rape of Nanking article, they have no place here." Using a Google search of non-specialist history books or newspaper articles will reveal an almost infinite number of estimates, mostly of unexplained origin, some as low as zero and some as high as ten million(see David Askew's essay "Defending Nanking" for the figure of ten million). But for an article on the Battle of Nanking there is only so much room for estimates on the death toll of the Nanking Massacre. For the purposes of the article on the Battle of Nanking, we should stick to the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000. |
| read this for inaccuracies and problems in Miracle Dream's statement |
|---|
|
There are few inaccuracies in Miracle Dream's figures. Even Masahiro Yamamoto noted in his book that Katsuichi Honda never explicitly said that he favored 300,000. Then in 1997 when Honda was explicitly asked what death toll estimate he did favor he said "something a bit over 100,000, but not approaching 200,000."(see The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame). Hora Tomio has mentioned in his own works that he favors an estimate of 200,000, but as he himself notes (and as Takashi Yoshida notes in his book The Making of the Rape of Nanking) that includes combat casualties, not just massacre victims. It's possible that Fujiwara Akira may have favored estimates up to 300,000 at one point, but he is on record as telling Shokun magazine in 2001 that he now favors an estimate of 200,000 which David Askew actually calls the "older orthodoxy" in contrast with the smaller modern-day consensus of "more than 120,000". Although Lloyd E. Eastman is not a specialist historian, Miracle Dream made a big mistake on that one. Eastman actually says that " testified that of the 250,000 civilians, no less than 12,000 had been killed." On this one Miracle Dream is off by 238,000, though as I said, Eastman is not an ideal source anyway. The large majority of the scholars Miracle Dream cites are non-specialists who have never revealed how they calculated their numbers. He actually starts out by citing a New York Times article by film and music critic Stephen Holden! By and large these are not high-quality sources of information. However, I will concede that a small number of the individuals Miracle Dream cites are genuine specialist scholars from outside the mainstream range. Yoshiaki Itakura, who believes that about 15,000 were killed during the atrocity, was actually one of the most influential Nanking Massacre researchers of all time. Tian-Wei Wu is a specialist historian on the other side who gives estimates well over 300,000. Though I still favor the overall scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000, note that as an alternative compromise I also offered 10,000 to 400,000, which includes both Itakura and Wu. |
Summary of dispute by Yaush
My read on this dispute is that no one is disputing the lower figure, 40,000. The dispute is over the higher figure, with CurtisNaito arguing for 200,000 and some other editors arguing for 300,000. It seems clear to me that CurtisNaito is much more familiar with the specialist literature on the casualty count than the other editors, who base their entire argument for 300,000 on non-specialist sources or on Chinese sources.
I agree with CurtisNaito on the unreliability of the non-specialist sources. Dorn, in particular, was a U.S. Army staff officer, not a historian. I have a copy of his The Sino-Japane3se War: 1937-1941 and it is clear he is opinionated, tendentious, and unreliable. He's also a bit of a plagiarist, in my opinion, since his book (published in 1973) shows remarkable parallels with the official Chinese history (published in 1971) but lists this work nowhere in his bibliography. The IMTFE estimates came much too close to the events in question, and -- do not mistake this for any kind of assertion that Japan did not engage in a clear pattern of war criminality; I regard the destruction of the Japanese Empire as a blessing to mankind -- not particularly impartial. The other authors quoted by the proponents of the 300,000 figure are nonspecialists uncritically repeating these estimates.
That leaves the Chinese scholars, and so the whole issue revolves around whether these scholars have the freedom to publish honest estimates. We now know with something like certainty that Soviet historians of the Second World War had no such freedom, based on research postdating the opening of the Soviet archives. It seems not at all implausible to me that Chinese historians on the mainland also have no such freedom. We have scholars claiming that Chinese historians have privately admitted as much to them. This is of course problematic; there are very good reasons why all such admissions would be anonymous, but that anonymity makes them impossible to independently verify. But it seems that none of these scholars ever publishes an estimate less than 300,000, which to me has the stink of a forced consensus.
I would be interested in knowing what the situation is with scholars from Taiwan, who presumably work in a different political milieu. There may be reasons why they also feel they do not have the freedom to publish figures less than 300,000, but I would like to know what figures they do publish and under what circumstances.
Summary of dispute by TH1980
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims is the scholarly consensus for Nanking, but I believe some lower estimates and some higher estimates can be included separately.TH1980 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Miracle dream
At first,I know this noticeboard discussion was created by User:CurtisNaito. I just have one question. Why did he put all users who agree with him above than who
disagree with him. The first three are all users who agree with him. Then remaining are who disagree with him. I think he can simply use the alphabetical order.
Actually,there are 2 month discussion, Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8, which more than 10 users involved. At last, the consensus used in this discussion is the death toll will be from 40,000 to over 300,000.
Estimation by International Military Tribunal of the Far East: "its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. That these estimates are not exaggerated" That means the estimation number by IMTFE is larger than 200,000.
Estimation by Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal: the death toll is over 300,000.
International Military Tribunal of the Far East and Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal are no doubt to compliant with WP:RS
Then based on neutrality rule, wiki should neutrally cite the reliable sources no matter where the sources from. English, Japanese and Chinese sources are all acceptable, However, User:CurtisNaito reject all Chinese sources. Moreover, he also reject the figures from International Military Tribunal of the Far East and Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal
Two New York Times articles , . The first one cited 150k as the lower bound, the 2010 article cited 200k as lower bound, and 40k is not mentioned by either. However,300,000 is cited by the first article. Actually I can accept 40k as lower bound because I accept all reliable sources based on the neutrality rule of wiki
I checked the previous discussion and find some table offered by other users in that discussion. In previous discussion, users: snorri offered a table. It includes the estimation from American, Japanese, Chinese and Taiwanese scholars who support range from 200,000 to 300,000.
| Name | Claimed death toll | Nationality | Current position | Notest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMFTE court exhibits | 260,000 | Document no. 1702， box 134， IMTFE records， court exhibits， 1948， World War II War Crimes Records Collection， entry 14， record group 238， National Archives | ||
| IMFTE Judgement 1948 | over 200,000 in the first six weeks | International Military Tribunal for the Far East, judgment of 12 November 1948, in John Pritchard and Sonia M. Zaide (eds.), The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Vol. 22. p.496 | ||
| Marvin Williamsen | over 200,000 and possible as many as 300,000 (quoted and agree with Dorn) | American | Chairperson of the Department of Interdiscipline Studies of Appalachian State University teaching Chinese history and military history, researching direction on US military attachés in China. | China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937-1945, p.144 |
| Frank Dorn | over 200,000 and possible as many as 300,000 | American | Colonel Frank Dorn, Military attaché in China during the Sino-Japanese War, member of the "last ditchers club" and witness of the massacre, writer and researcher of Chinese wartime history | The Sino-Japanese War 1937-41: From Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1974. p.93 The photo of the book: http://imgur.com/OC6nKsl |
| Edward L. Dreyer | at least 200,000, possibly 300,000 | American | professor of history at the University of Miami, main contribution to Chinese political and military history | China at War 1901–1949 (1995), p.219-220 |
| Mark Eykholt | exceed 100,000, possibly exceed 300,000 | American | Director of Intern Programs at the MIT Japan Program and MISTI China Program | ‘Aggression, Victimization, and Chinese Historiography of the Nanjing
Massacre’, in J. Fogel (ed.) The Nanjing Massacre in History and Historiography(2000), p.69 |
| Edward Friedman | 200,000 or more | American | Professor Emeritus of Department of Political Science of University of Wisconsin - Madison, research on Chinese foreign policy | National Identity and Democratic Prospects in Socialist China, p.135 |
| Lloyd E. Eastman | 250,000, possibly more | American | History Professor of the University of Illinois, research on Republican
Chinese history (the period from 1927 to 1949), a leading character in America on this field |
‘Facets of an Ambivalent Relationship: Smuggling, Puppets and Atrocities
during the War 1937–1945’, in A. Iriye (ed.) The Chinese and the Japanese: Essays in Political and Cultural Interactions, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1980). |
| David B. MacDonald | The death toll is somewhere between 42,000 at the low end more realistic figures of between 200 and 300,000 in the middle and a higher number of well over 350,000 favoured by Chang | American | Political scientist professor of University of Guelph specializing in International Relations and Comparative Politics. | Forgetting and Denying: Iris Chang, the Holocaust
and the Challenge of Nanking, International Politics (2005) 0, 000–000. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800111 |
| Sun, Zhaiwei | 300,000 | China | Research fellow at Jiangsu Institute of Social Sciences, China | |
| Zhang, Lianhong | 300,000 | China | Professor at Nanjing Normal University, China | |
| Hora Tomio | over 200,000 | Japan | Professor at Waseda University, Japan | Agree with IMFTE Judgement 1948 in Nanking Massacre (1986) |
| Lee En-Han | from over 200,000 to over 300,000 and over 300,000 is the most reliable estimate | Taiwanese/American | Professor at Taiwan University, Singapore University, fellow of the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica | Agree with IMFTE Judgement 1948 and prefer the "300,000 or more" estimate. cf. Lee En-Han, The Nanking Massacre reassessed : a Study of the Sino-Japanese Controversy over the Factual Number of Massacred Victims in Nanking 1937(1998) & A reviewing article on this issue(peer-reviewed and published at the Bulletin of Historical Research of NTNU) . |
| Tokushi Kasahara | from 100,000 to 200,000 or even more | Japan | Professor emeritus at Tsuru University, Japan | ibid. |
| James Yin, Shi Young, Ron Dorfman | over 300,000 | Chinese Americans and American | Liberal researchers and Journalist, with advisors as of Hsiang-Hsiang WU, Tian-Wei Wu, Gao Xingzu, Sun Zhaiwei, Sakoto Sugiyama, Bruce Bendinger, etc. | THE RAPE OF NANKING. An Undeniable History in Photographs (1997). |
| Tian-Wei WU | over 340,000 | Chinese American | History Professor of Southern Illinois University | Re-study of the Nanking Massacre, from Journal of Studies of China's Resistance War against Japan. 1994 p.39 |
In previous discussion, User: Remotepluto provide several qualified scholarly summary of death toll numbers from review articles describing previous researches. This is the excerpts from their work:
- First, there are two scholars who summarized different school of thoughts by Japanese authors.
Yamamoto, Masahiro (2000, Praeger), Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. ISBN: 978-0275969042. Page 254, Chart 7.1. (Note that Japanese names are written in a family-name first, given-name second manner.)
Chart 7.1
Rape of Nanking Controversy in Japan:
Schools and Their OpinionsSchool Number of Victims Personalities Extreme Traditionalists 300,000 or more Honda Katsuichi Moderate Traditionalists 150,000 - 300,000 Hora Tomio, Fujiwara Akira Traditionalist Centrists 38,000 - 42,000 Hata Ikuhiko Revisionist Centrists 10,000 - 20,000 Itakura Yoshiaki Moderate Revisionists 50 - 7,000 Editors of Kaiko series Extreme Revisionists 50 Tanaka Masaaki
05:56, 31 December 2014 Miracle dream (talk)
Summary of dispute by MtBell
- estimate varies
Dear fellow Wikipedians, please allow me one more day to complete the summary. Thanks.
- "scholarly consensus" or a minority view?
- avoiding original research
- avoiding unreliable source and fringe view
CurtisNaito cites an "anonymous survey among Chinese university researchers in Nanjing" by Kaz Ross, in purpose of excluding any any publication by Chinese scholars. However, I verified with Professor Zhang Lianhong who received Ross' visit in 2006. He replied by email that the so called "interview" never occurred. CurtisNaito's claim "Chinese scholars privately favor 40K-150K", which is based on Ross' non-existent survey, is a mere fabrication or at least misrepresentation.
Ross' claim is not only unreliable but also a fringe view, for it receives no support from any other publication. She gets little renown in Nanjing Massacre studies (she is not even a historian). Being a view of tiny minorities, the so called "interview" by Ross should not be included at all according to WP:NPOV. It's a pity that CurtisNaito attempts to use this non-existent survey to exclude any views on which he disagrees.
| CurtisNaito's claim on the "survey among Chinese researchers" by Ross is non-existent |
|---|
|
Ross claimed in a 2006 paper that she conducted an anonymous survey on the death toll among "Chinese university researchers in Nanjing". CurtisNaito claims that according to her survey "historians in China privately acknowledge that the death toll of the atrocity was between 40,000 and 150,000". To verify this, I contacted Professor Zhang Lianhong, dean of the Nanjing Massacre Research Center of Nanjing Normal University, for Ross's visit to Nanjing in June 2006 as described in her paper. Zhang replied:
|
- all majority views should be included
- conclusion and proposal for compromise
Summary of dispute by Carrotkit
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.A user is attempting to delete a claim supported by reliable sources regarding the death toll of the battle. He claims that all Chinese historians disagree with this number in private. He cited a "peer-reviewed research" conducted by an unknown Japanese historian, who denied conducting a such research. After I pointed out the fact that there is not a such research, he stop discussing the matter with me. I have suggested offering the readers with claims by both sides, but this user ignored and insisted his nonsense idea that "all Chinese historians disagree with this claim" with that non-existent "research".--Carrotkit (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Cwek
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Happyseeu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Talk:Battle of_Nanking discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Comment from uninvolved editor: @Carrotkit and @CurtisNaito; It is the responsibility of the filing editors to notify all the participants that a dispute resolution process has been requested. You may place a notice both on the relevant article Talk page and the individual Talk pages of the involved editors. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- All editors have been notified. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)
- @FelixRosch and TransporterMan: CurtisNaito's summary has exceeded 10,000 characters. If he really wants a fair discussion, he must reduce his comments to the 2,000 characters limit. --MtBell 21:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment from uninvolved user; @MtBell, The 2000 characters is a guideline and it appears that @Curtis has hatted a large part of that summary. At the present moment, everyone seems to be waiting for all the editors to make their summaries before a volunteer can offer to take the dispute. If you need to hat any material important to you in your summary, then you should be able to do so within reason at this preliminary stage. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The cap is 2000 characters not words: "Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible". If the it's not compulsory, I will also leave a long comment. --MtBell 01:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment from uninvolved user; @MtBell, @Carrotkit, @CurtisNaito, @Miracle Dream and other editors. My mistype above of intro summary size is corrected to 2000 characters. All editors should note that these summaries are often used in order to indicate that the editors are ready to start and are not meant for extensive detail. At this point @Biblioworm has kindly indicated that he might start things moving forward now that both sides of the dispute have registered their summaries above. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- The cap is 2000 characters not words: "Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible". If the it's not compulsory, I will also leave a long comment. --MtBell 01:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment from uninvolved user; @MtBell, The 2000 characters is a guideline and it appears that @Curtis has hatted a large part of that summary. At the present moment, everyone seems to be waiting for all the editors to make their summaries before a volunteer can offer to take the dispute. If you need to hat any material important to you in your summary, then you should be able to do so within reason at this preliminary stage. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll consider taking this case after all the users make their statements. --Biblioworm 21:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I'm currently reviewing all the arguments. Once I'm finished, I'll officially open the case. (This is pretty complicated , so be patient, please!) --Biblioworm 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Suggestion: @CurtisNaito, Yaush, TH1980, Miracle dream, MtBell, and Carrotkit: Before formally opening this, let me offer a compromise in hopes that this can be resolved before we begin a long, drawn-out case. Based on the ranges I'm seeing, you could put something like this: "Today, historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District, although some other estimates are between 10,000 to 300,000. However, some have described the 40-200,000 estimate as the one most likely to be accurate."
Thoughts? --Biblioworm 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I personally think that this is about as good as we are going to get and endorse it. I'm afraid of proposing any changes to your wording for fear of breaking your delicate compromise, but if I was to change anything with your wording, I would change "300,000" to "400,000". Sun Zhaiwei has proposed an estimate of 400,000 and Tien Wei Wu and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal both made estmates well in excess of 300,000. While 300,000-400,000 is definitely a minority viewpoint, it's no more a minority viewpoint that 10,000 is. Therefore, if we mention the extended range of 10,000 to x, I would make 400,000 the upper bound in order to include a broader range of individuals.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- At first, I suggest people should read the previous 2 month long discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8 and the consensus. Then I collect lots of data which support range from 200,000 to over 300,000 from different scholars who have different background. It is really hard to say only "some other estimates are 10,000 to 300,000".In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking. I previous thought we should neutrally accept all figures to make a consensus so I accept range from 40,000 to 300,000 in discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8. However, it seems the range 40,000 to 100,000 is really a minority viewpoints. I suggest to exclude the figure 40,000 and put 100,000 as the lower bound of the primary viewpoint. Actually, I previously thought the figure in article Nanking Massacre is good enough to contain minority and majority viewpoint to avoid dispute. Now I am thinking about removing the minority viewpoint 40,000.
- Moreover, it is really hard to say International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal is the minority viewpoint. It is the same as we say Nuremberg trials is minority viewpoint when we research Holocaust.The first one put range over 200,000 (for IMFTE court exhibits, figure will be 260,000) and the second one put the figure 300,000. Wiki is not the place for academic seminar. If we use our opinion to deny Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, it is kind of original research. It likes we use wiki research to deny the result of Nuremberg trials. However, we can say Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal put the estimation figure 300,000 but some Japanese historian thought it is too exaggerated. We should have no opinion on the description of Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. It would be really silly to say that it's excellent for Misplaced Pages editors to read some sources from some publications to deny two years' investigation by International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, but that it's impossibly bad to keep the description of result from these two trials. Amateurs are not always better than professionals, especially when it comes to evaluating something technical. Misplaced Pages neutrally accept all reliable sources even these sources are conflict between each others. The investigation from International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal are simply more compliant with WP:RS than others. 08:52, 2 January 2015 Miracle dream (talk)
- I think that Biblioworm's phrasing basically covers what needs to be covered. There are too many estimates to include all of them in this article and it seems to me that the estimates made by scholars are more valuable for the purposes of this article than trial transcripts created back in the 1940's. Also, for the record, the IMTFE made several estimates of the death toll, including one of "upwards of 100,000", so it's impossible to cite any one estimate of the postwar war crimes trials as being definitive. One of the big advantages of mentioning the 40,000 to 200,000 range is that it is not a range crafted by Wikipedians, but rather, is a range calculated by leading scholars in order to establish "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range". We know that some estimates go down to 10,000 and others go up to 400,000, and for this reason such estimates are perhaps worth mentioning briefly, but on the other hand a simple range of "10,000 to 300,000/400,000" suffers somewhat from the fact that it was a range developed by Wikipedians, not scholars. Developing our own original range, such as stating "100,000 as the lower bound" as you suggest, is not as good of an idea because trying to create our own unique range in this manner will ultimately be more controversial than simply quoting the "scholarly valid" range. In consideration of this, I would say that Biblioworm's proposal is a good, concise way of presenting the basic facts on death toll estimates. If we do decide to say anything more, probably a footnote would be a better place for it.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- At first, I suggest people should read the previous 2 month long discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8 and the consensus. Then I collect lots of data which support range from 200,000 to over 300,000 from different scholars who have different background. It is really hard to say only "some other estimates are 10,000 to 300,000".In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking. I previous thought we should neutrally accept all figures to make a consensus so I accept range from 40,000 to 300,000 in discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8. However, it seems the range 40,000 to 100,000 is really a minority viewpoints. I suggest to exclude the figure 40,000 and put 100,000 as the lower bound of the primary viewpoint. Actually, I previously thought the figure in article Nanking Massacre is good enough to contain minority and majority viewpoint to avoid dispute. Now I am thinking about removing the minority viewpoint 40,000.
Biblio. I have a question here, I think we are not required to respond this discussion everyday,right? Everyone has his own job or study in real life. I also have some busy works, Can I and other users make responses per two or three days? I don't think I have enough time to respond this topic everyday. I am very sorry if I made some trouble for this inconvenience. Thank you very much.18:27, 2 January 2015 Miracle dream (talk)
- You're under no mandatory obligation to participate in the case every day, although I'd have to extend the archiving date. --Biblioworm 16:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
If we cannot come to a simple resolution soon, I will formally open the case. @Miracle dream: Would you settle for the 10-400,000 estimates to be mentioned on the side as I have in my compromise, or do you want something different? Surely, we cannot include every estimate, can we? --Biblioworm 16:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Biblio. My personal proposal is "The death toll has been actively contested, with typical estimates ranging from 100,000 to over 300,000. Other viewpoint including U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking. Some historical revisionists considered this massacre was wholly fabricated for propaganda purposes"
- However, I can also accept the compromise used by article Nanking Massacre and Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8 which are "During this period, between 40,000 to over 300,000 (estimates vary) Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants were murdered by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army." or "The death toll has been actively contested among scholars since the 1980s, with typical estimates ranging from 40,000 to over 300,000." Actually this compromise by article Nanking Massacre includes the figures from International Military Tribunal of the Far East, Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal and other historians' estimations. However, this range does not contain the estimation from historical revisionists who considered it as fabrication or death toll from 1000 to 5000. It also excludes the estimation by some historians or documents which are 400,000 or 500,000. If you want, you can mention this or you can simply ignore these. I can accept either. I will not insist the estimation by revisionists or large number like 400,000 or 500,000. 19:37, 4 January 2015 Miracle dream (talk)
- I don't think that we should bother with the 500,000 figure for two reasons. Firstly, no historian has ever endorsed that number. It only comes from a single diplomatic document. Secondly, the document refers to killings between Shanghai and Nanking. Leaving aside the fact that this number likely includes military casualties, it at least definitely does include deaths in Shanghai which are not normally considered part of the Nanking Massacre. I still feel that we should at least mention the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ranges like "100,000 to 300,000" or "40,000 to 300,000" are ranges developed by Wikipedians and I actually view them as something almost akin to distortion. Historian Sven Saaler who reviewed Wakabayashi's book noted that Wakabayashi's 40,000 to 200,000 range "summarizes views on the victim tally presented in several contributions" and in writing his conclusion Wakabayashi says "At the present stage of research, victimization estimates of under 40,000 and over 200,000 push the limits of reason, fairness, and evidence." In other words, leading historians strongly reject figures below 40,000 and above 200,000, and given this it seems to me to be inappropriate and misleading to create a unique range of estimates by taking the scholarly consensus and then arbitrarily messing with it by adding extra numbers onto it which the consensus explicitly rejects. As controversial as this issue is, I can't help but think that the least controversial thing to do is simply to directly quote the range given by the latest scholarship. I can't help but think that inventing our own range will sooner or later prove more controversial than simply quoting the basic 40,000 to 200,000 range. As I said, it's reasonable to include some estimates outside of the consensus, but I doubt that it's a good idea to glue them on directly, as is the case of the 40,000 to 300,000 range. We should mention them separately, and not try to directly modify the consensus range.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
TH1980.I agree with Biblioworm's suggested compromise. It is a fair summary of all the diverse figures for Nanking and its aftermath.TH1980 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd hate to mess up the compromise, but let me propose another version of it: "Today, historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District, although 300,000 is also a somewhat common estimate among scholars. Other less common scholarly estimates range from as low as 10,000 to as high as 400,000, while the Japanese Ambassador boasted that 500,000 had been killed. However, some have said that the 40-200,000 estimate is the one most likely to be accurate."
Feel free to improve this if you can, but I don't think we will ever reach an agreement unless we include something along these lines. Pinging CurtisNaito, Miracle dream, and TH1980. --Biblioworm 22:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm mostly fine with it, except I strongly disagree that we should include "while the Japanese Ambassador boasted that 500,000 had been killed". That statement only comes from one obscure document. Few historians have analyzed the document, and no one has ever said that they agreed with the estimate as being the total killed in the massacre. The Japanese ambassador to Germany did not say that all the killed were massacre victims, but even if they were all massacre victims he did explicitly say that this figure included deaths in Shanghai. Considering that Shanghai is 300 kilometers from Nanking, I think we are on very dubious ground including deaths in Shanghai as being part of the "Nanking Massacre". Furthermore, the IMTFE's definition of the Nanking Massacre states that the massacre lasted from December 13 1937 to early February 1938. The document in question is dated to December 14 1937. In other words, if we were to use the IMTFE's definition of the massacre (admittedly not the only definition available), the figure of 500,000 represents only one day of the massacre, not the entire thing. I approve of the rest of the compromise proposal though.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- All right, then. This is the current proposition: "Today, historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District, although 300,000 is also a somewhat common estimate among scholars. Other less common scholarly estimates range from as low as 10,000 to as high as 400,000. However, some have said that the 40-200,000 estimate is the one most likely to be accurate." @CurtisNaito, Yaush, TH1980, Miracle dream, MtBell, and Carrotkit: Have we reached an agreement? --Biblioworm 23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That version sounds fine to me.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to reply so late. I am too busy these days. For my opinion,there are many problems. At first, it is really hard to say "historian estimate 40,000 to 200,000".Actually, there is no historian's consensus for this. Different historians offered different estimations. I listed lots of estimations from historians which put the range over 200,000 or even 300,000 in my summary. From what I see, the first problem is the 40,000 is not the lower bound of primary estimation by many historians. I see lots of media cited 100,000 as the lower bound. Major judgement International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal (the same status with Nuremberg Trials) all put the estimations over than 100,000. Media like New York Times also cited figures 100,000 as lower bound , . Then 300,000 is one of the common estimation not "somewhat common estimation". It was at first supported by major judgement Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, then was supported by many scholars who I listed before. Then it is largely cited by different media. Lots of document video used this figures. It was also used by New York Times . Hence, it was supported by judgement, some scholars and lots of media. Actually, the figure over 300,000 was even cited by the book "Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times" . This books is a history textbook which was used by hundreds or 1000 Universities or High schools in United States. It is weird to say 300,000 is minority view while so many universities or high school used this figures in its history education. Actually, I have mentioned these suggestions before but it seems these suggestions were ignored. Then if you want to notices all users listed in this discussion, I guess we should also notice @Happyseeu: 19:31, 8 January 2015 Miracle dream (talk)
- I have a copy of the book "Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times" and for the record I can't see where it mentions the Nanking Massacre. As you can see from its description on Amazon the book "examines cross-cultural encounters before 1492". It does not refer to events after that date. Furthermore, there's no reason to include the estimates made by the postwar war crimes trials in this article because these estimates have since been supplanted by better scholarship. There are other articles in which mentioning these estimates might be appropriate, but since this is not even an article specifically on the Nanking Massacre, here we ought to stick largely to newer scholarship rather than old primary sources from the 1940's. To give you just one example, Bob Wakabayashi notes in "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" that both the IMTFE and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal included in their estimates 112,000 corpses which are now known to have never existed. Wakabayashi notes that the latest scholarship suggests in fact that the tribunals inflated their estimates by 152,000 victims. Granted, the tribunals also failed to include victims in the remote rural areas of the Nanking Special Administrative District which many historians nowadays do include, but the fact is that the postwar war crimes tribunals did make major mistakes in their calculations. We absolutely should not mention their unreliable estimates in this article unless we also mention that these estimates are now known to be off by at least 112,000 victims. Miracle dream again cites a New York Times article by film critic Stephen Holden but I don't see why Holden is such an important authority on the Nanking Massacre. As I pointed out before, if we examine the works of specialist scholars and exclude less reliable sources like movie reviews by film critics, it becomes clear that the large majority of historians are within the 40,000 to 200,000 range. Even if one or two users on this particular day do not accept the scholarly consensus, sooner or later I'm certain that ignoring the scholarly consensus will ultimately prove more controversial than using it. I think Biblioworm created a reasonable compromise on January 6 and I still think we should go with that.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- All right, then. This is the current proposition: "Today, historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District, although 300,000 is also a somewhat common estimate among scholars. Other less common scholarly estimates range from as low as 10,000 to as high as 400,000. However, some have said that the 40-200,000 estimate is the one most likely to be accurate." @CurtisNaito, Yaush, TH1980, Miracle dream, MtBell, and Carrotkit: Have we reached an agreement? --Biblioworm 23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
CurtisNaito & Miracle dream: Sorry for sort of abandoning this. I've been busy with other wikiThings. :) Anyway, it seems like a simple compromise will not happen, so it's time to get down to the details. First, I want to ask you this question: What is the most extreme compromise that you would accept? (For example, would you only go as low as 20,000, as high as 350,000, etc.?) --Biblioworm 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if it will end this debate I suppose I can accept a simple range of 10,000 to 400,000. That includes the large majority of scholars, including the below-40,000 and above-200,000 fringe. If it's possible though, I still think that we should also mention the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000. The reason why I proposed that in the first place is because I still think that in the long run the scholarly consensus will be less controversial than cobbling together our own Misplaced Pages-made range. I think people will eventually wonder why we are using fringe estimates in an article which is not even specifically about the Nanking Massacre. Granted the lowest estimate ever put forward by a credential historian is zero and the highest estimate ever put forward by a credential historian is ten million. I suppose, if it will end this debate, I would also be willing to use the range of zero to 10 million.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think that this case is too complex to be handled in a reasonably short period of time, as is ideal for the DRN. There are too many editors involved, and too many different opinions. I'll give Miracle dream another week to respond to my question, and if there is no response, I'll close this as stale. If this case is closed, I recommend an RfC or MedCom. --Biblioworm 04:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Mexicans of_European_descent
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Alon12 on 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC).
 | Partly a content dispute concerning the lede section, where two issues of inclusion of paragraphs are being resolved by Requests for Comments. Issues about the remainder of the article do not appear to be going anywhere because of lack of specific suggestions from parties, and occasional complaints about contributors. If any parties want to discuss further content changes, use RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
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 user 'aergas', is providing a misinterpretation of a source through which to claim his original research. According to his source, it describes the 'mestizo' identity in mexico, in which various members of different races were assimilated. However, this source also cites the 1808 Mexican census under which the casta was implemented as part of Spanish Colonial rule. Under the Casta, 7/8ths europeans were considered 'criollos' or 'white mexicans'/'mexicans of european descent'. Aergas claims that 7/8ths europeans ceased to be considered criollos after Spanish rule ceased, when there is no evidence to suggest that as per his link, in which he has engaged in an edit war over. He has an agenda of claiming 'white mexicans' as 'full-europeans', despite the complex history of the region, it should be that 'white mexicans' or 'mexicans of european descent' are rather of 'predominant' european descent. Furthermore, as there is no modern census in mexico, there is no strict definition of 'white', unlike what 'Aergas' claims in his original research. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I created a section on the talk page, and we have since, in addition, engaged in a heavy conversation on my personal talk page too. He does not understand how to read even basic abbreviations from a genetic study, which I had to demonstrate to him in a metaphorical hand-holding process as he seems to have difficulties in effectively understanding both academic material and communicating in english. Two different administrators have explicitly since then recommended opening a new ticket here. How do you think we can help? Please provide a moderator to moderate this contentious wiki page, including the enforcement of the 3RR rule. It has been virtually unmoderated, and this user seems to have an agenda for rationalizing the 'purity' this demographic, while providing fallacious input. Allow a third party moderator to vet this issue and close it, instead of having him continue to vandalize the page with misinformation.
Summary of dispute by AergasPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.In my time discussing with the editor Alon12, I've noticed some negative tendencies, among these, that of being impetuous, because have he read with attention the discussion that I was having with EdJohnston (talk · contribs) he would have noticed that the first thing I suggested was to modify the entrance in a way comparable to White American or White Brazilian , because that way we would forget about "racial purity issues" (as Alon12 have called them) either way. Alon12 seems to be heavily concerned with White Mexicans and actually White Latin Americans not being "pure" enough for him, here he refers to them as "Diluted Spaniards" , and has gone as far as to claim that for him Spaniards themselves are "impure" . I don't understand what's the reason for him to get so upity. When evidency exists about White Americans themselves being admixed with Amerindians and Sub-Saharan Africans . He is looking down on Spaniards for being admixed with other European ethnicies and some bereber (who technically are caucasoid). What do people here think? Aergas (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Mexicans of_European_descent discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Introduction by volunteer moderatorI am agreeing to act as the volunteer moderator. Please remember that I don't claim to know anything about the content dispute, and that my job is to get the parties to communicate effectively, and possibly to come to agreement. Here are a few ground rules. I will pose questions and will expect concise civil answers. Complaints about conduct are not permitted. The use of the word "vandalism" or "vandalize" in this section is not permitted, and may be reported to WP:AN. Be concise and civil. The first question is: What change, if any, do each of you want to be made to the article? Also, do either of you want to make a concise civil opening statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) First comments by User:Alon12You see, the original structure of the article, stated predominant, which was quite fair. This was implemented in the original wiki page, a year ago, before these new edits were made. Such as stating 'predominant' descent instead of full. With regards to the other issue, on the first note, I've shown genetic studies directly comparing Spaniards with 'White Americans', demonstrating that in aggregate, 'white americans' were more homogeneous than spaniards, so in that context, also more than spaniard descendants by default. It would be the pot calling the kettle black with regards to saying xyz-group is more admixed. On a second note, It doesn't make sense to make mention of the admixture of 'white americans' in the first place with regards to its relevance to the article in general (it is not mentioned on the white brazilian article for instance, so why would it be mentioned on the white mexican article?), and in addition, the original article of a year ago made no mention of it either. There is technically no one who is racially non-admixed in modern times, even amongst europeans. However, relatively, spaniards have more admixture than white americans, as seen in studies in which they are directly compared. Alon12 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) First comments by User:AergasHi Robert, in this dispute I was bidding for the status quo, but lately, I've been open to suggestions to improve the article, now I'm ok with modifying the opening sentence and other parts of the article, similar to what was done in the article of White American or White Brazilian (changing the name to "White Mexican" must be done too). Alon12 was suggesting this kind of modification above, so I don't see why would he oppose, but in the discussion I've had by him he have shown to be fundamentaly contrarian to me on everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aergas (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderatorComment on content, not contributors. Don't say that another editor doesn't understand something. He may disagree. There are two statements that Aergas wants in the lede paragraph and that Alon12 does not want in the lede section. Is Aergas willing to agree to moving them into the body of the article? If so, we have agreement on the lede section, and can move on to the body. If there is disagreement, are both editors willing to use the Requests for Comments process to request community consensus on the inclusion of the questioned language? If we don't either get agreement to exclude the two questioned portions from the lede, and we don't get agreement to an RFC, I will have to close the dispute resolution as having failed. Are there any issues that need to be identified concerning the body of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Eighth reply by User:Alon12With regards to comments on 'americans', such comments would be more relevant for the article on 'mexican americans'. This article is specifically written in the context of mexican nationals. In any case, as demonstrated, Spaniards maintain higher levels of admixture than white americans in aggregate, so it is still a pot calling the kettle black analogy. The other issues talked about include: this line in the introductory paragraph: "Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%." ', it describes mestizo, by region, not ethnicity, it already includes anyone regardless of ethnicity, so you cannot use it to describe it as a another group, being mestizos. Literally, from the study: "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." and in addition this source: While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4.' From this source , when it specifically shows 90% european admixture in the actual source, . So, still higher than the admixture of Spaniards, as not even europeans are 100% european. Also, this line in the introductory statement: " Because of this, the line between whites and mestizos has become rather blurred, and the Mexican government decided to abandon racial classifications." This is a WP:Syth, and an opinion. My point regarding the admixture posted in the heading, is that if that is to be posted, then so should a sentence regarding the historical standards to be considered white, such as this being added, 'The historical requirement to fulfill this criteria was to be of predominant (officially 7/8ths) european ancestry'. It does not make sense for some commentary on admixture to be placed in the heading but not others. That is not a consistent structure. An RFC would be fine, if that is the next step forward, it seems what has happened here so far is mostly bouncing around, with the opposing party not willing to make any concessions, despite not being able to substantiate WP:Syth. The only such concession made here was when it was mandated by you that the 'predominant' or 7/8ths ancestry, rather than full european ancestry be mentioned in the article, in which case, his hand was forced. So, provided, you do not make anymore such mandates, I don't see this going anywhere. So, bring on the next step, RFC, we are ready for it at this point. Alon12 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Eighth reply by User:AergasI want to address some points brought by Alon12: I have had no problem with incorporating the information that Alon12 have brought to the article, including the information about the 7/8s ancestry, it is even included in the version that I consider the ideal and that I submitted to the moderator, you haven't done anything besides a joint agreement with me for the lead sentence, and now you were wanting to remove even more things, things that are properly sourced, that never bothered you until now, and that you didn't opened this case for. And your reasons to remove them are unfeasible, here is why: Summed up shortly, Alon12 says that White Americans (is necessary to mention them becuase the majority of Mexican Americans are white and there is a big Mexcan diaspora in the United States) are more European than Spaniards, therefore they shouldn't be mentioned in the article" I have no idea where on Misplaced Pages Alon12 read that this kind of argument works and is valid to remove sourced information, but I'd like to see it, and this is, not considering that sources do exist, that point non-European admixture in White Americans aswell: this source claims that 52% of White Americans have more than 5% non-European ancestry and in the sources that Alon12 presented, the non-European admixture of Spaniards was 1%-2.4% (when I linked said study on his talk page he said "How do we know that the other 52% weren't all 94% White?" thing that is obviously a non-serious response), and on this study, as Alon12 said above ,White Americans have a European admixture of around 90% (he said also above that Spaniards are even less European, while his own studies found the non-European admixture of Spaniards to be 1%-2.4%), so there is no solid veredict to wheter White Americans are more European than Spaniards, this makes the argument useless. And besides that, not all the Europeans that arrived to Mexico were Spaniards, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Poles and White Americans themselves have migrated to Mexico aswell, because all this reasons, Alon12 argument don't works, and I would have liked that he stoped using it, but we see, he didn't. The objetion that Alon12 has to a part (that is sourced with a genetic study) of the introduction paragraph is that a the genetic study cited says that " it describes mestizo, by region, not ethnicity, it already includes anyone regardless of ethnicity, so you cannot use it to describe it as a another group, being mestizos. Literally, from the study: "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." The problem with Alon12 objetion here is that Mexicans never are asked what they consider themselves to be, not in genetic studies or in census, that's the reason why Mexico is said to be 80-90% mestizo, because everybody just gets written off as that, mestizos, no matter how they look like or what their ancestry is. And that's not the only case, there are cases on which the so called mestizos are very close genetically speaking to Europeans and have no similarity to Amerindians at all, despite being labeled as mestizos , (looking at the attitude that Alon12 and another editor have shown towards the article recently I think I will add this to the article in the future to work as reinforcement). Thus Alon12 argument on this don't works, because all the genetic studies on Mexicans are like that. The third argument of Alon12 is good in my opinion, but I think is easy to find a source to back up the statement marked as "not in citation given" and is not a major issue, i think it might be in another part of the article already. And being objetive here, the version favored by Alon12 looks more cutted and inconsistent than mine. If all this is not enough to make Alon12 stop wanting to remove sourced material and be happy instead because the information he brought was included I believe that RFC is required here. Aergas (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderatorA two-part RFC is in progress concerning the two issues about the lede section of the article. Are there any issues about the body of the article for which the parties think that moderation may be useful? If so, moderated discussion will move on to the body. If not, this issue will be closed as being resolved by RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Ninth statement by User:Alon12Yes, there are many parts. For instance, if the opposing party decides to make WP:Synth, or WP:OR, on opinions, which do not actually reflect the source, then moderation should be enforced to verify that the very link, which is suggested, provides proof of the claims he presents. This is something lacking in the article. For instance, here is something, literally, 10 seconds of fact-checking could easily fix through actual moderation: He posted this sentence: "While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4.' From this source . Yet, the actual source states that the admixture is actually around ~90% . This is the problem, heavy WP:Synth, and WP:OR, which even basic fact checking through a tiny bit of moderation could fix in this article. With regards to the other such sources, again, no specific admixture in aggregate is found, furthermore, it is known that different genetic studies make use of different techniques which can reflect measured results. Another example of applying WP:Synth, and WP:OR, is by citing those other 2 articles he just did , , which literally have nothing to do with admixture. He is assuming in his original research that this presents some kind of linear correlation, but it does not, because many non-linear impacts such as for instance, 'founder effects', have been known to influence genetic data. So, again, there is a very big problem of WP:Synth, and a lack of verification of what the source actually states compared to the original research presented by the opposing party. With regards to Spaniards, that article on sub-saharan african admixture , reflects sub-saharan african admixture alone at 2.4%, so as Spaniards did not directly mix with sub-saharan africans, but mixed through North Africans, it is not a surprise that they would have much higher levels of North African and West Asian ancestry in addition. This is seen explicitly, when white americans and iberians are directly compared, . Spaniards maintain more admixture. Alon12 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Ninth statement by User:Aergas
|
Talk:Friedrich Goldmann#Influences
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Jerome Kohl on 00:47, 7 January 2015 (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
- Jerome Kohl (talk · contribs)
- Planetdust (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A long-standing disagreement between two editors over the meaning and inclusion of a reliably sourced statement exists on this article. No movement toward a resolution is evident.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Requested 3O. Obtained an opinion, but this has been rejected by one of the disputants.
How do you think we can help?
Further advice and opinions on the validity of each side's views would be helpful.
Summary of dispute by Planetdust
Jerome Kohl repeatedly tries to install a misleading quote, presenting it as what must look like a composer's statement of his general influences (names of other composers). The source, an article from a musicological journal, doesn't contain an exact quote by Goldmann as Jerome Kohl makes it appear (it says "by his own admission" - i.e. as in "Goldmann was asked by an interviewer and didn't say no"). The section this is taken from seems to be about 1 particular composition (out of the 200 Goldmann wrote) and the names of influences given there contradict those given in other biographical sources on Friedrich Goldmann (by omission and the chronologically and aesthetically nonsensical naming of Dieter Schnebel, who isn't mentioned in ANY other source, while there are many sources naming a variety of influences, many of them appearing consistently). I described this problem in detail and presented such other sources (including descriptions of influences by Frank Schneider, the musicologist who has published most on Goldmann) in the talk. I made the contradictory and obviously ambiguous nature of the one disputed here very clear. Jerome Kohl, after referring to his own ears and the value of rare information on direct influences (while with Goldmann they aren't rare) in support of his insertion, instead of doing appropriate research for sources on the topic, kept pushing this particular singular source back in the text.
I'm also particularly displeased by Jerome Kohl's recent tendency on the talk page to try manipulating other users' evaluation of the talk page by repeatedly claiming that no contradictory evidence has been presented (it has) and that relevant objections he fails to address meaningfully are "repeated platitudes" - while at the same time he failed, despite producing significant amounts of text, to give ANY substantial explanation whatsoever even just on why any of the named influences could be considered as such - other than that he found them in the only source he has consulted on this.
However, the source in question might be perfectly appropriate in a separate article on the work it is related to: Symphony III (1986). Considering Goldmann's oeuvre spans 4 decades, beginning in the 1960s, information regarding possible influences on one particular work in the 3rd decade (1986) of a complex oeuvre and presenting it as general information is simply misleading and too biased to be inserted in the article.
Talk:Friedrich Goldmann#Influences discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- Note: I'm currently reviewing all the arguments. Once completed, I'll officially open the case. In the meantime, we are still waiting for the summary of the dispute by Jerome Kohl. EBY (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jerome Kohl
User:Planetdust has repeatedly removed a cited clam supported by a reliable source, claiming that it is either misleading or even contrary to fact. the source, an article from a musicological journal, paraphrases the composer Friedrich Goldmann on the subject of influences on his compositional style generally. User Planetdust believes that the claim of influences, if true, applies only to one composition, but the full context of the quotation (provided at Planetdust's request on the article's Talk page) does not support this view, though that work (Goldmann's Third Symphony) is named as one piece that may display some or all of those influences. Planetdust further insists that a reliable source is not sufficient to support an otherwise uncontradicted statement, holding that the inability to find a corroborating source is in itself proof of the claim's falsity or, at least, the unreliability of the cited source. The fact that the author of the claim, Williams, published a subsequent two-page chapter on Goldmann without repeating the claim is taken by Planetdust to be a retraction by Williams. Planetdust has been invited to present, in conjunction with the supposedly dubious claim, contrary opinions on this matter supported by reliable sources, but has declined to do so, preferring instead simply to delete the claim together with its source. Naturally, the nature of influences in artworks is often difficult to pinpoint, and the source does not go into any detail beyond attributing the claim to the composer himself. Nevertheless, such a statement is precious evidence regarding a composer about whom little enough information is available. As such, it should be included in the article. Any disagreement from other reliable sources should of course also be included, so that the reader is given the best available information from which to judge the merits of the case. Suppression of sound evidence is never good practice, on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Introduction by volunteer moderator and first question
Hello. Thank you for your summaries. I will be acting as volunteer moderator. Please remember that I don't claim to know anything about the content dispute or have any specific knowledge of Friedrich Goldmann. My job is to get the parties to communicate effectively towards a resolution. Here are a few ground rules: I will pose questions and will expect concise civil answers. Complaints about conduct are not permitted. Let's get started:
First question: It appears that a part of the crux of this discussion is around the inclusion of (or a similar version of) "Goldmann's commitment to new music is evinced by his acknowledgement of Varèse, Dieter Schnebel and the late style of Nono as influences on his music; in fact works by these composers were performed at the première of his own Third Symphony." - Would you agree? If not, please clarify. And if this is so - what are the specific arguments for/against? More to the point - how does it add/subtract/mislead in the article? Is it the wording, placement (maybe there should be an influences section?), or the presence of the information as sourced? EBY (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
First answer from Jerome Kohl: It is the crux of the discussion, it seems to me, not just a part of it, yes, I agree. I think I have already expressed myself on the question of what it adds to the article: it is a rather scarce bit of information about the influences that shaped the thinking of this composer. Planetdust did at one point raise an objection about placement, and I certainly had no objection about moving it to the section in which the composer's style is the focus of discussion. In fact, I moved it to that section myself, thinking it a sensible suggestion. Planetdust deleted it again, however. I do not find it distracts of misleads in any way. I believe this is where Planetdust disagrees with me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by volunteer moderator: We're waiting on the response by Planetdust. EBY (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
First answer from Planetdust Yes, this is the crux. The statement begins with "Goldmann's commitment to new music" - this is not in question, since Goldmann never did anything else. That makes the source even more awkward, if not entirely incompetent. Contrary to what Jerome Kohl continues to claim, there are plenty of sources on Goldmann's influences - encyclopedia articles as well as interviews. See talk at Friedrich Goldmann for a selection, see the German Misplaced Pages article for a long list of sources. It is just that this particular, disputed source is ambiguous (what does it refer to? Goldmann's style as a composer? Symphony 3? Goldmann's work as a conductor of that particular concert programme? We just don't know). It is extremely unlikely to reflect general influences, which is indicated by the fact that it doesn't match the information given in any of the other sources that do list influences (by omission of relevant names and introduction of unlikely names - see below).
This is not a matter of placement. Wherever this is placed in the article right now, it would suggest *general* relevance of the influences named, which we just don't know because the source doesn't tell us. Then, specifially, for two reasons it is extremely unlikely Schnebel can be considered an influence at all: A) There is no aesthetic link between Schnebel and Goldmann. Consulting any 2 biographical sources that list features of their artistic strategies will show this. Even the source in question doesn't provide anything on this. B) Due to Goldmann being East German and having had written most significant works between 1965 and 1979 (the years in which he wasn't allowed to travel to West Germany - Berlin Wall), it is extremely unlikely he could have had any profound knowledge of Schnebel's works, thus Schnebel could have hardly exerted much influence.
SUMMARY: it is unclear what this source refers to (composition? conducting? one work or an entire oeuvre?), it doesn't provide information that is "scarce", it contradicts several sources that do list influences that refer unambiguously to creative periods as a composer. Planetdust (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Second answer from Jerome Kohl: It is easy to clear up one thing here, at least. Planetdust has apparently not carefully considered the wording of Williams's text, since there is no question of Goldmann's conducting being the object of influence: "his acknowledgement of Varèse, Dieter Schnebel and the late style of Nono as influences on his music" (my emphasis). Beyond this, it is not usual in a summary of a composer's work to insist on pinpointing influences in the way Planetdust is doing ("one work or an entire oeuvre"), even if it is nice to be able to do so for clarity. We say, for example, that Schoenberg was influenced by Wagner and Brahms, without pointing to specific works of Schoenberg or passages in them; neither do we cite, on the other hand, the Ode to Napoleon Buonapart as a refutation of such a claim of influence, simply because that one piece does not have anything obvious to do with Brahms's music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Second & third question from volunteer moderator: 2) The connection between Nono and Goldmann seems well established, yes? It is in the German Misplaced Pages article as well so that leads to the assumption. 3) So this would lead to the dispute being more about the inclusion of Varèse & Schnebel as influences. Are there many influences cited more often or more specifically in other references that make inclusion of these two seem UNDUE? Or is it that the cite itself is under question because it is not specific enough for the editor's concern?EBY (talk)
Third answer from Jerome Kohl: These questions seem directed more at Planetdust than me, since I am not objecting to inclusion of Williams's assertion. One thing about question 2 on which I would like clarification, however: No one is contesting the fact that Goldmann and Nono were acquainted, but is this intended to assume also that Nono's music or theoretical thinking in some way influenced Goldmann's music? If so, then it seems to me that there is little difference between Nono and the other two composers since, as far as I can tell, Williams is the only source that goes so far as to say that Goldmann acknowledged Nono as an influence on his music (as opposed to being a close acquaintance). BTW, Goldmann himself acknowledges the influence of Varèse, in a 1992 interview, while at the same time admitting it may not be easy to pinpoint specific examples in his compositions. This is discussed on the Talk page of the Goldmann article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Second answer from Planetdust: Yes, the cite itself is under question because it is ambiguous - and because it represents an "extremely small minority view." Yes, there are influences cited often by many sources: Boulez, Stockhausen; Nono almost everywhere; more are cited often. But: the disputed statement, as it is, is in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding "Neutral point of view" and "prohibition of original research." The relevant section in guidelines says: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The disputed source is the only source presented so far to claim Schnebel has had any influence on Goldmann. I repeat: there are plenty of sources that offer rather congruent lists of names (see talk). Sooner or later somebody will summarize these properly. Until then, there is no justification to have this kind of singular finds in the article. Planetdust (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Fourth answer from Jerome Kohl: I think Planetdust may be misusing the quotation from "Neutral point of view", and "Original research" does not apply at all to statements verified by reliable sources. There are minority points of view and then there are minority points of view. In the present case, for example, Goldmann himself is an extremely small minority, but one that can hardly be ignored. I am not sure whether Planetdust's comment here was made before or after my addition to the article Talk page earlier today, but it turns out that Williams appears to be relying for this disputed information on a 1988 article by Frank Schneider, which in turn contains an interview with Goldmann where the composer himself discusses the influence of Varèse, Schnebel, and Nono on his music. Schneider describes Goldmann's relationships with both Nono and Schnebel as "Freundschaften" (friendships), and in the interview Goldmann describes the common concern he shared with Schnebel about the re-admission of traditional genres such as the symphony, after the rejection of them by the European avant-garde in the 1950s and 60s. He also says that the impact of these three composers on his music is more palpable than that of the well-known works of Boulez or Stockhausen. So, do the "many other sources" who say the opposite (according to Planetdust—I do not have access to many of the sources he mentions) carry more weight than the words of Goldmann himself? I think not but, to make for a more lively discussion, I do not see why these clashing points of view should not be presented side by side in the article. Let the reader decide who should be believed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Mounir Majidi
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Tachfin on 11:16, 7 January 2015 (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
In the article Mounir Majidi I have objected to an edit because:
- It removed multiple references (user alternatively argued that the links are dead, not in English therefore shouldn't be used or because "wikileaks' diplomatic cables were not "official statements", but informal communications between US agents.").
- It removed a section titled "controversy". This section only contained a reference to a corruption allegation case. Supported by two references.
- It removed a navigation template and the external link in the external links section and placing instead a "this section is empty" template
- Changing the date format to month first (MOS:DATETIES, MOS:DATERET)
- Changing the birth date despite this being referenced to an official document from the Luxemburg company registry. (Apparently without bothering to check that ref)
- Removing positions from the infobox and changing the predecessor/successor or the office start date without any explanation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on talk, reminding of the relevant WP policies related to dead links and references.
How do you think we can help?
By explaining some policies such is those related to references, dead links, date format, deletion of supported statements.
Summary of dispute by Chewbakadog
Thank you for taking the time to review this dispute. Let me briefly sum up the situation :
- I suggested a new version to the Mounir Majidi page with fresh facts --> https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mounir_Majidi&oldid=641378607
- user Tachfin, very involved on all Morocco-related pages, and with a strong bias on all of his contributions, undid everything, despite the freshness and addition of value my version provided. He doesn't accept an ounce of my version, but rather discards it bluntly, with a very agressive attitude
- user Tachfin argues that I am removing a negative sentence sourced with Wikileaks cables, but it's actually a positive sentence (Majidi is in the top 3 most influential people of his country, that's pretty flattering if you ask me). I don't mind the source (Wikileaks dead link), but there is no need to flatter the guy this way, mostly in the intro.
- Regarding the controversy, my argument is as follow : Majidi was accused by one journalist, who seems to be an opponent to the regime (Bemchemsi), in the opinion section of one national newspapers. The other source is a deadlink (). According to WP:SOURCE, If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, and then Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. We have here the point of view of one person (Bemchemsi) published in the opinion section of one newspaper, which is a WP:YESPOV and needs to be removed. Also, a "controversy" section is created merely for this YESPOV, which is WP:UNDUE and needs to be removed.
- Tachfin's arguments that I removed the external links section, that the dates weren't properly formatted, that I removed a source for the birth date even though there is no conflict on his birth date, or about the infobox (and I followed his advice in the latets version of my version ), all those arguments do not justify undoing my edits.
Overall, I am accusing Tachfin of WP:ATTACK : Tachfin is agressive, has the attitude of WP:BULLY, only accepts his own version of the page. He is full of accusations regarding Majidi, but doesn't bother to justify them. I did a bit of research and found that Tachfin created the pages Zakaria Moumni (a moroccan kickboxer accusing Majidi of torturing him of something), Yassine Mansouri, head of Moroccan CIA (where he puts a link to Majidi's page for no significant reason), Ali Anouzla (page with accusations of corruptions by Majidi)... If I didn't know any better, I would say that he has a personal thing against that Majidi guy... Thank you for hearing my POV. --Chewbakadog (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Mounir Majidi discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer. I'd like to start this discussion with Misplaced Pages's guidance on criminal allegations. Please try to confine discussion to the specific topic. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Criminal allegations
Charges
Is but no trial was brought against him in Morocco accurate? Is but no criminal charges have been filed against him in Morocco also accurate?
- I think it's accurate, I don't see any trial mentioned anywhere... --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Guideline
What relevance does the guidance provided at WP:CRIMINAL, specifically Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. have to this article and how the material is to be presented? --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- No court of law has pronounced majidi guilty of anything. Our issue is that one journalist made accusations on a french national newspaper, but no court (at least that I know of through multiple google searches), whether it be in France or in Morocco, has ever made him guilty of anything. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Le roi prédateur
In the context of corruption charges can the book, Graciet, Catherine and Laurent, Eric (2012). Le roi prédateur: Main basse sur le Maroc. Paris: Seuil. ISBN 978-2-02-106463-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), review here, be considered to be a reliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe, I've never read it... However, the review doesn't mention anything criminal about majidi. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Demain
In the context of corruption charges can the magazine Demain, Soundouss, Badr (11 February 2014). "Mounir Majidi veut censurer les critiques sur Youtube". Demain (in French)., be considered to be a reliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Challenge
In the context of corruption charges can the Moroccan weekly economic review Challenge (Casablanca), and its 31 May 2012 article "Roi du Maroc et du business" (no electronic copy available) be considered a reliable source? See, e.g. the 15 May 2013 Lakome newspaper article "Justice : la contre-offensive de Majidi" here. --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikileaks
Although the information on Wikileaks can be considered a primary source, does its reporting in secondary media such the newspaper El País and the magazine Yabiladi
Lakome article
Do either of you have the title or the date of the article that appeared in the Lakome newspaper that is currently a deadlink at FN11? --Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't, but on wikileaks.org, we find this () :
Authenticity and Modernity, Mohamed Mounir Al Majidi who is the head of the King's private secretariat, and the King himself. "To have discussions with anyone else would be a waste of time"
- and :
ONA's VP reportedly told his interlocutors that Morocco's major investment decisions were effectively made by three individuals: the King, Fouad El Himma the former Deputy Minister of Interior who now leads the Palace-backed Party of Authenticity and Modernity, and Mohamed Mounir Al Majidi, who is the head of the King's private secretariat and his principal financial advisor.
- I don't find it really noteworthy, because not backed up by any concrete example ... --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Public figure
How does the Misplaced Pages policy on living public figures, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, specifically: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. apply in this case? --Bejnar (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my primary argument, there is only one journalist making the allegations of corruption, in an opinion section of a newspaper. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Birth date
Is Mounir Majidi's date of birth still an issue? --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's never been for me... The french wikipedia page says 19th january (fr:Mounir_Majidi), but a lot of sources say January 10th (), so I guess we can go for 10th. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template Mohammed VI
Does the template {{Mohammed VI}} belong at the end of the article? Please cite appropriate Misplaced Pages policy, Misplaced Pages guidelines or even Misplaced Pages essays that support your position. If you have no cited Misplaced Pages support for your position, please state the philosophical/encyclopedic basis for your position. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we can keep this template, I had not even noticed that I had removed it in my version. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Influential
Does the fact that Majidi is seen by some diplomats (and possibly others) as highly influential (3rd most influential ...) contribute towards his notability? --Bejnar (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Majidi seems to have a lot of influence in Morocco, but I think that all the press about him is a more reliable notability ranking factor than anonymous diplomats. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Meghan Trainor
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Lips Are Movin on 10:50, 10 January 2015 (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
- Lips Are Movin (talk · contribs)
- MaranoFan (talk · contribs)
- Winkelvi (talk · contribs)
- SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs)
- Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs)
- Atomic Meltdown (talk · contribs)
- Livelikemusic (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.A dispute has arisen as to whether Meghan Trainor is a singer-songwriter. Various reliable and notable sources have been noted on the talk page supporting Trainor as a singer-songwriter that directly call her by the title of "singer-songwriter":
- The Atlantic
- The Independent
- The Guardian
- Billboard
- USA Today
- Yahoo
- Spin
- Marie Claire
- Bellingham Herald
- National Post
- Glamour
On the singer-songwriter article it states: "Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano" She regularly performs acoustic and accompanied by her ukelele And is pictured in professional photo shoots that are published by reliable sources with her ukelele in the vein of an acoustic singer/singer-songwriter
The article states Singer-songwriters' lyrics are personal, but veiled by elaborate metaphors and vague imagery, and their creative concern was to place emphasis on the song rather than their performance of it. Most records by such artists have a similarly straightforward and spare sound that placed emphasis on the song itself. - See the All About That Bass (which is considered as a protest song) and Title (EP) (where she was compared to other singer-songwriters Jenny Lewis and Neko Case) articles which entirely back this up.
The argument against her not being a singer-songwriter in the dispute seems to be solely based on the fact that she also sings pop music and is not "folk". However, the singer-songwriter article states that singer-songwriters do in fact sing popular music and not solely folk. Taylor Swift, Jason Mraz, Alanis Morrissette are a few of such singer-songwriters for example.
On the singer-songwriter article it states 'Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition. It also states: "Singer-songwriter" is used to define popular music artists who write and perform their own material, which is often self-accompanied generally on acoustic guitar or piano. Such an artist performs the roles of composer, lyricist, vocalist, instrumentalist, and often self-manager. Trainor in fact has done this with all her three self-released self-produced albums and just last month with her Christmas song "I'll Be Home" and in October with her Thanksgiving Special. And in the liner notes of her Title (EP) she is credited as a songwriter, composer, instrumentalist and executive producer for every single song. The very same singer-songwriter article lists Jagged Little Pill as an example yet the entire album was not entirely produced and composed by Morissette alone but in collaboration with Glen Ballard - very much like Trainor has done with Kevin Kadish for her Title (EP) & Title (Meghan Trainor album) releases recently. All my aforementioned points support Trainor as a singer-songwriter per the the Misplaced Pages definition and as stated in the number of reliable sources that call her by that title.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensively discussed across two topics on the talk page, the same issue was also discussed on the talk page less than a month ago.
How do you think we can help?
No consensus is being reached, and it would be appreciated if an editor who is unbiased and civil can resolve the dispute fairly, taking all facts by the users considerably involved with the page's development into mind.
Summary of dispute by MaranoFan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Hello! I was a co-nominator for the article's GA. I have also been involved with most of the page's construction and discussions related to it. I happened to stumble upon an edit-war today and decided to resolve it. I went to the article's talk page and wanted to know if there was a way the GAN wouldn't be failed. But it was failed. I haven't edited the article since (or even during) the dispute. I believe that Trainor is a singer-songwriter due to all the reasons provided above and her first two albums she wrote/produced/composed alone. Marano 08:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Winkelvi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.The article has experienced edit warring over the term singer-songwriter vs. singer, songwriter. Common sense in addition to the actual definition of what constitutes a singer-songwriter (as opposed to a singer and songwriter) appears to dictate keeping the article from putting Trainor put in the singer-songwriter category. I stand firm for the use of singer, songwriter (or singer and songwriter) but not singer-songwriter.
Summary of dispute by SNUGGUMS
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.I wasn't really involved in the edit war, but did link to an RfC on the use of "singer-songwriter" in hopes that it would resolve the content dispute. Apparently it wasn't enough, and the arguments kept coming. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Joseph Prasad
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.I only reverted twice, but there was a lot of edit warring on a dispute of singer-songwriter and singer AND songwriter, and I slightly contributed to that, but I have said to discuss on talk page. I'm not that familiar with her career and had to ask other editors for assistance to put her in that category, I just recently started editing this and came on to the dispute. The constant edit war dispute has gone on for quite a while with no consensus. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Atomic Meltdown
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Honestly, these fanboys are the reason why this is still going on. We can all agree that Trainor is in fact a Singer and a Songwriter. And there examples of Taylor Swift and Drake Bell, those are people they like too. One more thing from me and that's it, singer-songwriter only applies to acoustic musicians not Trainer who is a pop artist and those two acoustic albums you bring up are nowhere to be found online or on her page. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
Summary of dispute by Livelikemusic
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.As someone who stumbled upon the article, and noticed the brief edit-war between editors over singer-songwriter vs singer and songwriter, I went to the page of a singer-songwriter, and per definition, it appears Trainor does not fall under that headline; upon changing, I was reverted. I opened a talk page discussion to gain consensus, and was reverted once again, despite opening of talk discussion. livelikemusic 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Meghan Trainor discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority outside of DRN 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.
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 any user conduct issues. Do not talk about other editors. If your summary of dispute statement contains anything that talks about other users in any way, please go back and edit it so that it only talks about article content. If you are unwilling to do that, I will warn you on your talk page and if that does not work I will remove part or all of your statement as allowed in Misplaced Pages:Mediation#Control of mediation.
If anyone has a problem with any of this, you have a couple of options. You can choose to not participate with no negative consequences, or you can ask me to turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.
Right now I am waiting for everyone to edit their their statements so that they don't talk about other editors before opening this up for discussion. While we are waiting for that, I encourage everyone involved to review our Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and Misplaced Pages:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - Lips 09:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am reviewing the article and talk page history now and plan on opening the discussion sometime this afternoon (PST). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of marking the case as open/in progress. I hope that is helpful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Guy Macon and Keithbob, this request for dispute resolution assistance seems to have fallen through the cracks. I'd be interested to know why. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon and Keithbob: It seems this has stalled, and as a result a consensus has been made on Talk:Meghan Trainor that she is a singer-songwriter and that we should use the endless amount of WP:RS that state her as such, instead of the "Misplaced Pages definition". However, the article has now been unlocked and User:Winkelvi who received a warning from WP:3RR last night, and has been reported regarding 6 different issues on WP:ANI has decided to edit war on the article again and insists there is no consensus when it is merely him who disagrees with the consensus in the dispute. An urgent resolution is needed ASAP. Thank you. - Lips 07:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon and Keithbob: An indefinite Topic ban on Winkelvi for Meghan Trainor should suffice. Marano 07:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon and Keithbob: It seems this has stalled, and as a result a consensus has been made on Talk:Meghan Trainor that she is a singer-songwriter and that we should use the endless amount of WP:RS that state her as such, instead of the "Misplaced Pages definition". However, the article has now been unlocked and User:Winkelvi who received a warning from WP:3RR last night, and has been reported regarding 6 different issues on WP:ANI has decided to edit war on the article again and insists there is no consensus when it is merely him who disagrees with the consensus in the dispute. An urgent resolution is needed ASAP. Thank you. - Lips 07:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of_the_Somme#Anglophone_monoglots
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Keith-264 on 23:33, 15 January 2015 (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
Battle of the Somme A difference of opinion about language in the lead section between User:Thomask0 and me has got a little entrenched and several other editors have joined in, generating more heat than light.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on the talk page until it went in circles and attracted other editors. My revert of a Thomask0 edit (there have been some frivolous edits of the article reverted by me and other editors in recent months) was reverted, re-reverted and representations of points of view eventually followed on the talk page, which have got nowhere. At present two more editors have joined in and The ed17 has intervened (warning me but not the others).
How do you think we can help?
Clarify with each editor that they are applying the same criteria re: edits and discussions, clarifying with each editor that Article layout priorities and due weight are being given and gaining a neutral opinion over good faith.
Summary of dispute by Thomask0
In my opinion, the dispute centers on the accuracy, style, and appropriate position in the article of certain points. The article is it stands at the time of the edit lock is pretty much as it should be as far as I'm concerned. Comparing it with the prior state, I have the following criticisms of the contested matter:
- The contested matter makes an unsourced claim; namely that it is significant to the article's overall subject that certain English-only speakers are unable to access certain non-English documents. There is no mention of how many such people there are, nor who they may be, nor of why their language and/or cultural position is significant.
- The above claim is made using extremely obscure phrasing -- "anglophone monoglots" -- obscure to the extent that the phrase has had to be wikilinked. The phrase in question produces only 500 hits on a General Google search, 53 on a Google Books search, and zero on a Google Ngram search. Given the size of Google's search bases, those numbers are extremely small. This problem is made worse by the fact that in the context of the matter concerned, the phrase "English-speakers" is a suitable and easily understood alternative.
- Overall, even if the above two points were corrected, the contested matter itself is not sufficiently significant to merit a position in the article's lead. As it stands (with the material moved further down), the lead gives an accurate precis of the article's subject. Moving the contested material into a dedicated "Historiography" section, with removal of the obscure prose and either removal of unsourced propositions or provision of sources, solves the problem
Summary of dispute by The ed17
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.I am involved in this only in my capacity as an administrator. Ed 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of_the_Somme#Anglophone_monoglots discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Talk:Battle of_the_Somme#Anglophone_monoglots discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.First statement by volunteer moderator
I am willing to serve as the volunteer moderator. I don't claim to know anything about the Battle of the Somme other than that it was part of World War One and was extremely bloody. I will state a few ground rules. Statements should be concise and civil, and should focus on article content, not conduct or contributors. What does each of the parties want with respect to the article? What sections of the article are involved, and what are the content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
First statement by User:Keith-264
Thank you for taking the trouble. As it happens an assisted dialogue has reopened on the talk page, which promises to make this request redundant if the others agree. Perhaps you could drop in Talk:Battle of the Somme to see the state of play? Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
First statement by User:Thomask0
First statement by User:The ed17
Talk:Neo-feudalism#Anarcho-capitalism
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Nuclearsnke on 12:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC).
| Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Misplaced Pages, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
No, but I have tried to and may still submit a request according to the form. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Neo-feudalism article was linked to the anarcho-capitalism subreddit on the 11 January 2015. Some members of the subreddit found the unsourced claim that anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea (implied in the sentence "It is related to neo-reactionary ideas like anarcho-capitalism.") and decided to remove it. Other editors reverted the deletion claiming that it was vandalism but the controversial sentence was removed again. This has continued back and forth since then and the editors refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started a discussion on the talk page that no one wanted to participate in and submitted a request for a third opinion that was declined because there was no discussion on the talk page except for my comment. How do you think we can help? The other editors may be more willing to discuss this with you which might lead to a compromise. You may otherwise be able to advice on where to take this next. Summary of dispute by 82.39.87.101Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by KaiserEricSJPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 174.109.139.137Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 168.29.16.40Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 71.178.41.198Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 108.34.247.77Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Lysander91Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 2605:a000:160a:c016:b4ca:f72b:8aec:2b85Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 67.80.19.100Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 80.0.78.24Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by 178.4.107.93Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Talk:Neo-feudalism#Anarcho-capitalism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:WikiProject Astronomy
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Arianewiki1 on 13:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC).
| John (talk · contribs) has revoked Tetra quark's access to AWB, which was the specified main goal of this discussion. Regarding the discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy on the capitalization standards of astronomy-related terms, consensus can and should still be reached as is normally done, with an uninvolved editor closing the discussion when sufficient time has passed and participation has occured. As specified by several editors below, the discussion itself may be better held at WP:MOS, which would also attract editors with experience in linguistic knowledge, in addition to those from WikiProject Astronomy (and the result potentially integrated into the MOS itself - and if required, resolved via WP:RFC). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
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 Under the Section "Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?", Tetra quark has implemented AWB to modify words like 'universe', 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system' across all astronomy (and some other related) pages (now +500 articles), without allowing any adequate time to gain consensus and in violation of AWB. I.e. Less than 16 hours. Tetra quark has claimed "No, AWB is good at that. I basically have to find the term "the universe", check the context and replace with "the Universe". Or I can also simply find "universe" and check the context to see if it should be capitalized." However, from the large edits changed, he has no time to have done this, meaning this statement is seemingly deliberately false. Primefac "Thus, AWB would be a very bad way to handle this issue, even advised as it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis", yet Tetra quark, had implemented the changes three hours before this. From the discussions, Tetra quark has clearly avoided advice given to him regarding getting consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This problem cannot be easily solved as a dispute, because the changes have significant implications for editing by Users. How do you think we can help? Remove privileges to use AWB for such severe edits in the future. Summary of dispute by Tetra quarkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by PrimefacPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.From discussions with Tetra quark, I know they have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart. While being BOLD is encouraged, Tetra seems to take this to a new level. They do attempt to gain a consensus in most cases, but this latest edit attempt pushes the bold boundary. From the AWB request logs () it appears they did not have a valid reason for gaining access to AWB other than "it makes editing easier," and badgered the admins until the edit count was reached and access gained. I concur with Arianewiki1's proposal to remove Tetra from the AWB user list until such time that Tetra can demonstrate restraint and better judgement. Summary of dispute by JorisvSPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Maybe Tetra quark should have allowed more discussion time, but I understand why he went ahead: everyone who came there basically said the same thing about it. Moreover, what everyone basically said is capitalization along the lines of capitalization of similar words like "Sun" or "Moon". I take this to be a very unambiguous sign that there is a clear consensus to capitalize "Earth", "Moon", "Solar System", and "Sun". Tetra quark's edits regarding this are appropriate. I suspect that it would have been sufficient to ask him to wait longer to give more people time to chime in, instead of the rather harsh response from Arianewiki1. --JorisvS (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Peter GulutzanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.I believe that this should have been proposed as an update for MOS:CELESTIALBODIES rather than a project talk page. Currently that guideline is not clear except for earth/sun/moon/solar system, and neither is the International Astronomical Union (IAU) document "Naming Astronomical Objects". But the NASA style guide says "Do not capitalize solar system and universe" and I believe that, if no other authoritative source is found, NASA should rule. Tetra quark changed sun to Sun inside a direct quote, which another editor has reverted, but that's what made me worried that Tetra quark is not being super careful with this AWB super power. So I have an opinion that the edits regarding solar system and universe are incorrect and improperly authorized, but don't have an opinion about the appropriate remedy. Update: I made a mistake earlier about "solar system" and have edited my remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StringTheory11Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.For the sake of brevity, Tetra quark will be referred to as "TQ", Arianewiki1 as "AW", and Primefac as "PF" I've added myself as a party here, as I was the one who originally proposed when the word "universe" should be capitalized, and what seems to be what TQ is acting on. However, despite the fact that I generally agree with the changes TQ has been making, I agree that half a day is nowhere near long enough for consensus on an issue to be reached, and that he seems to be avoiding accountability on the issue. Unfortunately, I thus agree with AW and PF that TQ has not used AWB how it was intended to be used, and thus would support a stern warning to TQ to wait at least a week after a discussion has been started before using AWB to make mass changes such as this. I don't think a full revoking is necessary at this point, as I believe that if he is warned by an uninvolved admin, he will take it to heart, as he clearly has WP's best interests in mind when editing. I would also be interested in seeing TQ's response here, now that multiple editors have expressed reservations about his AWB editing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by John CarterThere is a question regarding the capitalization of some words when they are used as proper names. "Earth" as the name of the planet, for instance, is reasonably qualified when used in that sense. "The earth" however is not so clearly a phrase using the word as a proper name, and thus on that basis generally isn't capitalized. I am myself unaware of any cases where the word "universe" is treated as a proper name, and on that basis I would have very serious questions about us possibly engaging in WP:OR and treating it as one. "Solar system" might also, reasonably, be capitalized when it is specifically referring to the solar system in which the planet Earth lies, because "Sol" is one of the names of the sun and on that basis the word "Solar" is basically and adjectival variation on the proper name Sol. I have never however seen much evidence to indicate that the words sun and moon are generally used as proper names, and on that basis can see no good reason for capitalizing them as if they were such. I don't see any real basis for thinking that individuals on this page have the ability to remove AWB access, so think that this request might well be misfiled. Such concerns would probably better be raised at maybe WP:ANI where there are individuals who might have the capacity to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ReykFirst of all, on the subject of the actual dispute, TetraQuark is more right than wrong. "Universe", being the proper name of the cosmos we inhabit, should generally be capitalised. Similarly our Earth, Moon, Sun, and Galaxy should be capitalised, these being proper names as well. Our articles Sun and Moon have used the capitalised names for some time. TQ is correct on this, and the consensus emerging on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy is leaning in favour of that. I do agree that TQ has jumped the gun and should not have closed an ongoing discussion in TQ's own favour, and should definitely not be removing other peoples' posts. However, I think Arianewiki's behaviour has not been all that great. AW is belligerent, makes undeserved personal commentary, and rejects any kind of conciliatory gesture. There is no need for the discussion to be escalated to this noticeboard, and we would not be here if not for AW's hostile, litigious attitude. Reyk YO! 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Graeme BartlettI am the admin that granted the AWB access to Tetra Quark. I have been checking how AWB was used and had to issue one warning on another non-connected inappropriate use. TQ responded to stop the wrong tagging. However in the case under discussion here I have not seen problematic use of AWB. What I do see is Arianewiki1 being the one who has a dissenting point of view and then escalating the argument, and Tetra Quark being impatient and closing the discussion early. The discussion is now reopened, as it should be as discussion was still active. (even if it was turning into criticisms by Arianewiki1 and responses by Tetra Quark). To resolve this dispute Arianewiki1 should step back, let others discuss the topic at Misplaced Pages Talk:WikiProject Astronomy, and then get a formal close by an uninvolved editor. I do not think a formal RFC is required, as the consensus seems to be clear that the capital letters should be used where appropriate. AWB edits are supposed to be manually checked, so it should not automatically go haywire and change all "universe"s to "Universe". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by SuperHamsterI have not been involved with the WP:Astronomy discussion, but I have been following. Keeping it brief, the situation involved TQ asking about capitalization conventions of astronomy-related terms. A few editors commented, but the discussion was short and lasted for less than a day before TQ decided consensus and began to use AWB to semi-automatically change the capitalization of terms over hundreds of articles. I am not sure about whether or not TQ's determined grammar convention is right; regardless of that, I would say a firm consensus wasn't established, and a better venue for such a discussion would have been at WP:MOS. Referring back to the original point of removing TQ's AWB permission: What I would like to make note of is that, over the last week, TQ has shown to, at least a couple times, to jump the gun and do many incorrect AWB edits across articles. These issues have been brought up on TQ's talk page previously, with warnings about being cautious when using the tool: When TQ requested AWB, he barely reached the minimum of 500 article edits and wasn't exactly sure what he wanted to do with the tool. I think this is simply a case of premature AWB use. As a result, I'd support removing the AWB permission - however, I agree with John Carter that ANI would be the better venue to discuss tool removal. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:WikiProject Astronomy discussionUser Tetra quark has now placed an archievetop on section "Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?", to seemingly openly avoid scrutiny of his AWB changes in which there has been no agreed consensus. Furthermore, the User is falsely claiming "This is turning into personal attacks." to somehow justify the deletion. He has accused me "It is just you against lots of people." and "Please respect the closed discussion tags. Also, you're making personal attacks. It is only you against lots of people who are ok with the changes." It makes it near impossible for anyone to reasonably resolve this issue. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Comment from JohnIn light of the above, and following TQ's continuing to mass-edit using AWB without waiting for these discussions to resolve, I have removed TQ's AWB access meantime. I would not recommend restoring it unless these is convincing evidence that it will be a net benefit. At the moment I do not think that it is. --John (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|
User talk:Johnnydowns#January_2015
– New discussion.
Filed by Johnnydowns on 18:40, 18 January 2015 (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
Cirt is accusing me of meat puppetry and reverting my edits because he suspects meat puppetry. He has opened a dispute, but no decision has been made regarding it and he has no evidence. Also, as I read the meat puppetry guidelines, they don't seem to apply to individual edits on single articles in the manner he suggests.
After removing my edits for meat puppetry, he fell back on using other general guidelines to remove them (which I do not think fit) and started to threaten me with banning for vandalism.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've reached out to Cirt on his talk page and explained my position on editing and my good faith attempts to edit. He ignored my questions on editing and responded with an irrelevant comment about another user's retirement from Misplaced Pages.
How do you think we can help?
I think an outside opinion on my edits and on Cirt's accusations from an unbiased third party will help resolve the dispute.
Summary of dispute by Cirt
- Already being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_case_going_after_Featured_Article_writer_Neelix.
- This page here is redundant as a duplicate entry, please instead discuss at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_case_going_after_Featured_Article_writer_Neelix.
- Unfortunately ongoing WP:Meatpuppetry has resulted in driving Featured Article writer, editor Neelix, off this website Misplaced Pages.
- Misplaced Pages suffers a great loss of a Featured Article writer, that this WP:Meatpuppetry was allowed to stand and drive Neelix off this website.
— Cirt (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)