Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

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

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

The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs).

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

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

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

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

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

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

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

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Battle of_Nanking 2In Progress CurtisNaito (t) 2014-12-30 08:13:00 Biblioworm (t) 2015-01-23 16:20:00 Biblioworm (t) 2015-01-23 16:20:00
Meghan Trainor 2In Progress Lips Are Movin (t) 2015-01-10 10:50:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-01-25 00:02:00 Lips Are Movin (t) 2015-01-25 08:46:00
Talk:Mounir Majidi 2In Progress Tachfin (t) 2015-01-07 11:16:00 Bejnar (t) 2015-01-14 17:48:00 Chewbakadog (t) 2015-01-19 15:13:00
Talk:Battle of_the_Somme 2In Progress Keith-264 (t) 2015-01-15 23:33:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-01-24 17:28:00 Rjensen (t) 2015-01-25 02:48:00
Template talk:Infobox_Olympics_Kosovo#STOP REMOVING ALBANIA! 7Closed PjeterPeter (t) 2015-01-21 13:03:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-01-24 22:54:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-01-24 22:54:00
Talk:Battlestar Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Notice_Of_Dispute_Resolution_Regarding_.27International_Co-Production.27_Issue 2In Progress Twobells (t) 2015-01-22 12:02:00 Pcfan500 (t) 2015-01-24 14:58:00 Drovethrughosts (t) 2015-01-25 13:40:00
Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#How much "Background" is appropriate? 7Closed Curly Turkey (t) 2015-01-23 03:35:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-01-23 15:30:00 Yug (t) 2015-01-23 17:23:00
Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart#Names 7Closed 174.254.194.9 (t) 2015-01-23 06:43:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-01-23 15:42:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-01-23 15:42:00
Talk:Pope Joan 1New 189.8.107.196 (t) 2015-01-24 17:25:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-01-25 19:43:00 Cuchullain (t) 2015-01-25 22:12:00
Talk:Ahmad Sanjar 1New HistoryofIran (t) 2015-01-24 20:28:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-01-24 23:13:00 HistoryofIran (t) 2015-01-24 23:35:00
Northern Province, Sri Lanka 1New Obi2canibe (t) 2015-01-24 20:48:00 None n/a Obi2canibe (t) 2015-01-24 20:48:00
Talk:Malik-Shah I 1New HistoryofIran (t) 2015-01-25 21:39:00 None n/a HistoryofIran (t) 2015-01-25 21:39:00
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)



Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Battle of_Nanking[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – 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

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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.)

Summary of dispute by Yaush[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [1], [2]. 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 [3] 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[4] 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.)

05:56, 31 December 2014‎ Miracle dream (talk)

Summary of dispute by MtBell[edit]

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.

all majority views should be included
conclusion and proposal for compromise

Summary of dispute by Carrotkit[edit]

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[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Happyseeu[edit]

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

Talk:Battle of_Nanking discussion[edit]

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, 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)
  • 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 [probably the most complicated one I've ever taken], so be patient, please!) --Biblioworm 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: @CurtisNaito, Yaush, TH1980, Miracle dream, MtBell, 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. [4] 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

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, 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 [5], [6]. 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 [7]. 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" [8]. 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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 Wikipedia-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)

Biblioworm: Sorry that I am really busy these weeks and unable to respond in time. After reading your proposals for compromise, I have two suggestions. First, the compromise can not deny the existence of the Massacre, so the range as low as 10 or several thousand is not worthy of consideration. Second, the compromise should treat all scholars equal, for NPOV suggests that all majority views must be included and fairly presented. --MtBell 20:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If we limit ourselves to "all majority views" then there is no sense in including anything other than the well-established scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000. If we include some figures outside the consensus we might as well go down as low as 10,000 since there are plenty of prominent researchers who go at least that low. There were plenty of individuals in the 2001 Shokun magazine survey of Nanking Massacre researchers who gave figures around that level, and there is also Minoru Kitamura and Yoshiaki Itakura at around that level. It's true that they represent a minority, but no more so than those above 200,000. The point is that if we are bothering to delve into the above 200,000 fringe, then we should also mention the below 40,000 fringe.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If a government officer, a TV presenter and right-wing activists are "prominent researchers", I would rather call you a genius. --MtBell 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Minoru Kitamura is the author of a book and a number of papers on the Nanking Massacre. He is a Phd holding professor who teaches Chinese history at Ritsumeikan University. Yoshiaki Itakura is also the author of a book and numerous peer-reviewed papers on the massacre. His book was described by leading historian David Askew as "an impressive summary of the work of someone who devoted his life to researching the Nanjing Incident." It's true that these individuals are a minority, but they have considerably more credibility than anyone advocating figures above 200,000.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And I do agree with you that the estimates around 10K you mentioned above are minority views. Remembering that all proposals here are no more than two sentence long, according to NPOV, the views of minorities should not be included at all in such a short statement. MtBell 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@MtBell: So, what do you feel is the majority view, and what do you personally think should be included? --Biblioworm 16:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Biblio.Sorry to replay late. For this figure range, the most extreme compromise case I thought is from as low as 100,000 and as high as 400,000. It means the extreme upper bound is 400,000 and the extreme lower bound is 100,000. I prefer to the range from 100,000 to over 300,000. However, I can also accept the range from 100,000 to 400,000.
For high school or university test book, I am sorry the book name is "Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past" which mentioned Nanking Massacre. I am pretty sure the figure used in this book is 400,000. The amazon link of this book is here[9]. This book was picked as the best book of 2014 in Amazon and used as textbook in hundreds or thousands university or high school. ‎ 05:32, 25 January 2015‎ Miracle dream (talk)

Meghan Trainor[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – 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

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":

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 [10][11][12] 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[13][14]

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.[3] Such an artist performs the roles of composer, lyricist, vocalist, instrumentalist, and often self-manager.[4] Trainor in fact has done this with all her three self-released self-produced albums[15] and just last month with her Christmas song "I'll Be Home"[16] and in October with her Thanksgiving Special[17]. 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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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. [18] [19] Marano fan 08:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Winkelvi[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 my talk page! 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor discussion[edit]

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

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Lips are movin 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, -- KeithbobTalk 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, 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 "Wikipedia 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 are movin 07:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon, Keithbob: An indefinite Topic ban on Winkelvi for Meghan Trainor should suffice. Marano fan 07:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's Note: Guy Macon, who has been the lead volunteer on this case, has had to withdraw due to real world health issues. A replacement volunteer has been requested on the DRN talk page. Please discontinue all further discussion here until if and when a new volunteer takes the case. Discussion may continue, of course, at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Introductory statement by substitute volunteer moderator[edit]

I will be taking over as the volunteer moderator for discussion of the dispute about the article on Meghan Trainor. I have no special knowledge, and no authority. I don't know anything about Trainor except that one of her songs has topped the charts. My job is to try to facilitate discussion. Please do the discussion here, because I may ignore any discussion on the article talk page. My first question is: Is anything about the article in dispute other than whether to identify her as a singer-songwriter? Is it agreed that she is a singer and a songwriter, and is the only item of disagreement whether to give her that particular designation? If there are any other matters of dispute, what are they? Those who say that she is a singer-songwriter should explain why. Those who say that she is not a singer-songwriter should explain why not. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second, would the participants in this dispute agree to have whether to call her a singer-songwriter decided by the Wikipedia community by a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Lips Are Movin[edit]

From what I see on Talk:Meghan Trainor there has been consensus to use the endless reliable and reputable sources that call Trainor a singer-songwriter, as apposed to the "Wikipedia definition" argument. On a side note, Trainor co-writes all her music and self-produced and wrote her first three self-released albums, and has production and several instrument credits on her major label debut Title (Meghan Trainor album), and frequently performs acoustic style accompanied by her playing the ukulele - also pointed out on the talk page. - Lips are movin 08:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:MaranoFan[edit]

I don't have anything to add. The summary provided by JosephPrasad below is perfect and I agree with it. There is consensus and sources on the article's talk page. As such, I am pretty sure that this is already resolved. MaRAno FAN 08:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Winkelvi[edit]

To quote Dire Straits founding member David Knopfler on what a singer-songwriter truly is, "It's simply about the song" [20]. The title singer-songwriter isn't about the artist, it's about what they are producing and performing. It's about music as true art defining the singer-songwriter genre/classification, not about cranking out pop hit after pop hit. It's about art that lasts and remains timeless and defining. I cannot see Trainor's music fitting into that category at all.

All that in mind, I'm dubious about the proposal, simply because I think most people today don't really know the true definition of "singer-songwriter" in comparison to "singer and songwriter". Because of that, I'd rather see this go through a RfC at a music-related project appropriate to the topic. -- WV 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:SNUGGUMS[edit]

Second statement by User:Joseph Prasad[edit]

I would like to say that the singer-songwriter article, the definition is outdated, not many go in the acoustic, solo fashion, and usually perform with bands for back-up vocals and instruments. So really, anyone since like, the 90s beyond would not be a singer-songwriter. Many sources have been provided on Trainor, and they were reliable, yet reverted. Many other discussions go about on other articles, and the main argument is sources. If there is a consensus and there is sources, it should be accepted. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Atomic Meltdown[edit]

Second statement by User:Livelikemusic[edit]

Third statement by volunteer moderator (second by substitute[edit]

The most obvious difference is whether to refer to Trainor as a singer-songwriter. Some of you have already said that she should be so described. I will ask the other participants whether there is any disagreement with calling her a singer-songwriter. If there is agreement, then that dispute can be resolved. If anyone objects, then please state the objection. (I haven't seen any disagreement as to her being a singer-songwriter, so, if there is disagreement, please say so.) If there is not agreement to use the word "singer-songwriter", then the most reasonable way forward would seem to be a Request for Comments on the Trainor talk page. Does anyone object to an RFC on the Trainor talk page? (If there is agreement that she is a singer-songwriter, then the RFC is not needed.)

I will suggest, partly outside this issue, that if editors think that the definition of singer-songwriter in that article is too restrictive, then it should be revised. If there is disagreement about revising that definition, then either another RFC or another moderated dispute resolution thread are in order.

Also, are there any other areas of dispute about the Meghan Trainor article, or is it limited to whether she is a singer-songwriter?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by User:Lips Are Movin[edit]

Third statement by User:MaranoFan[edit]

Third statement by User:Winkelvi[edit]

Third statement by User:SNUGGUMS[edit]

Third statement by User:Joseph Prasad[edit]

Third statement by User:Atomic Meltdown[edit]

Third statement by User:Livelikemusic[edit]

Talk:Mounir Majidi[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – 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 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[edit]

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/w/index.php?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 ([21]). 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 [22]), 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia'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[edit]

Charges[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. , 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[edit]

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)

Demain is a satyrical newspaper, kind of like Charlie Hebdo in France... --Chewbakadog (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Challenge[edit]

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)

I am unable to answer this, as I have no access to this article. --Chewbakadog (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikileaks[edit]

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 [here, alter the contention? --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it is a reliable source: there's an acknowledgement at the end of the article confessing that readers need to be cautious with the info from this Wikileaks cable because it has not been double-checked by the editorial team. --Chewbakadog (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Lakome article[edit]

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 ([23]) :

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[edit]

How does the Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 ([24]), so I guess we can go for 10th. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template Mohammed VI[edit]

Does the template {{Mohammed VI}} belong at the end of the article? Please cite appropriate Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines or even Wikipedia essays that support your position. If you have no cited Wikipedia 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[edit]

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)

Talk:Battle of_the_Somme[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – 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[edit]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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[edit]

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 [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_the_Somme[edit]

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

First statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

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)

Sixth statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

Can we get agreement that the lede can include: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Details of the controversy can be discussed in Historiography (and are deferred).

Do the participants in this discussion agree to refrain from editing the article while moderated discussion is in progress? If so, can we request the locking administrator to unlock the article to permit other editors to edit, and to permit the moderator to insert any changes resulting from consensus?

Are there any other issues about the lede section?

Sixth statement by User:Keith-264[edit]

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Yes

  • Para 2 "The first day on the Somme was [also] a serious defeat for the German Second Army," add "also" as indicated. Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I undertake not to edit the page except via a moderator for the duration.Keith-264 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by User:Thomask0[edit]

I'm unsure of what the state of resolution is. The questions being asked in this sixth round seem almost identical to some of those of the fifth round. My answers are therefore pretty much what they were in that round:

  • I do not agree that the proposed statement should be added to the lead; I don't believe its content is significant enough to be in the lead at all. Overall, in the context of the dispute, I don't believe anything should be changed in the Article from how it was in its recently locked state (with the possible exception of some rationalization of the Historiography section, which we are deferring)
  • I don't object to the locking editor being asked to unlock and I agree to refrain from editing during this moderated discussion
  • I believe that the lead could benefit from further simplification, but that's unrelated to and of much lower importance than this dispute

Thomask0 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by User:Rjensen[edit]

Sixth statement by User:The ed17[edit]

Seventh statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

I asked whether a sentence could be added to the lede section of the article, that the battle has been controversial, at least in English-language historiography, since 1916. One editor says yes. The other says no. We have three options. First, Keith-264 can agree (concede) to leave the lede as is, and we can move on to discussion of the rest of the article. Second, the two editors, Keith-264 and Thomask0, can agree that the question of the inclusion of that sentence in the lede can be decided by a Request for Comments. In that case, either we can proceed to other sections of the article, or we can close moderated discussion. I realize that discussion of other sections of the article may be dependent on the issue of the lede. Third, if the parties do not agree to an RFC, I can do a general close of moderated discussion. Those are the three choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by User:Keith-264[edit]

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Yes Para 2 "The first day on the Somme was [also] a serious defeat for the German Second Army," add "also" as indicated.

These amendments are essential if the quality of the article is to be maintained. If necessary I will abide by a majority decision obtained by a request for comments. Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by User:Thomask0[edit]

There is a fourth option. I would not object to the addition of the following to the lead:

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect"

Failing that, I agree to the request of and would abide by WP:RFC. I note, however, that until only very recently, we had three editors involved, in which case WP:3 could have been a simpler and quicker route to resolution. Is it worth waiting a day or two, or the moderator pinging that third editor in case he is only temporarily absent? Thomask0 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by User:Rjensen[edit]

I Support "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC) As for Day 1, I'm not sure who would call it a defeat for the Germans. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

I asked whether a sentence could be added to the lede section of the article, that the battle has been controversial, at least in English-language historiography, since 1916. One editor says yes. The other says no.

It is now proposed that the mention of English-language historiography be deleted, and that a statement be added that the battle has been controversial since 1916 over its necessity, significance, and effect. That sounds, to the moderator, who hasn't read the historiography, like a compromise. Will the editors agree to: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect"?

Third Opinion has been mentioned. The Third Opinion procedure is not applicable after moderated dispute resolution begins, but the opinions of other editors are welcome.

We now have at least three options. First, if the editors agree to the mention of the controversy, without reference to the English language, that becomes the language of the lede. Second, an RFC can be published. Third, I can do a General Close. I am optimistic that the third option will not be necessary.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Keith-264[edit]

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" This is the minimum I will accept.Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Thomask0[edit]

I agree to the mention of the controversy, without reference to the English language. Thomask0 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Rjensen[edit]

Yes, I can agree with "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

In the absence of agreement as to whether "especially in English-language writing" should be included in the sentence about the controversy over the battle, I have opened a Request for Comments at the article talk page. Please provide your arguments in favor of or against inclusion of the phrase as the rationale for your Support or Oppose !votes. (I wasn't able to provide those arguments. I am not an expert on the historiography of World War One.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Keith-264[edit]

Even a brief acquaintance with the non-English-language writing about the battle where passages have been translated or second-hand commentary has been written by the likes of Hew Strachan Chichele Professor of the History of War who even uses the term "monoglots", Sheldon (a German speaker), Sheffield etc, demonstrates that the controversy about the battle is peculiarly English. Ignoring this basic fact when it hangs over English-language-writing like a shroud, is mistaken and will add to the deterioration in the quality of the article. I notice that the passage has already been edited and some of the sense lost. Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Thomask0[edit]

Oppose: The caveat that the historiographical controversy (over necessity etc.) exists "especially in English-language writing", while not necessarily false, is itself controversial. Even in the context of this dispute, sources have been offered to back both positions in what is effectively a "controversy over the controversy". And so if the "English-language" claim over the historiographical controversy is mentioned, then accuracy would demand we also mention that the "English-language" claim is itself controversial. In other words, we'd need something like the following:

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect. It is claimed by some commentators [citations] that the controversy exists especially in English-language writings, however that claim itself is controversial [counter citations]."

That serves to underline the fact that the "English-language" claim is not a claim about the Battle of the Somme (e.g. "Lots of men died"). It is not even a claim about a claim about the Battle (e.g. "With respect to the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over necessity, significance and effect"). It is, instead, a claim about a claim about a claim about the Battle ("With respect to the controversy over necessity, significance and effect of the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over the significance of the lack of English translations of French and German documents"). Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, that is clearly too detailed a point, on too minor and editorially controversial an issue, to merit inclusion in the lede. If it needs to appear, then it (and the controversy around it) can certainly do so elsewhere in the Article. I would not object, however, to inclusion in the lede of the non-controversial, more significant, and clear-cut assertion that the necessity etc of the battle has been and remains controversial. The previously proposed wording is an example of what I would support:

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect".

Thomask0 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just to pre-empt a possible misconception. It is of course conceivable that the bulk of commentary on the Somme has indeed been produced in English, given the dominance of that language in general. And so in that case it may literally be the case that the historiographical controversy exists "especially in English-language writing", but only in the way that commentary on anything in which the UK or US have a prominent role will stand a good chance of existing "especially in English-language writing". If that were all that were at stake then while the "English-language writing" caveat may be true, it would be trivial and unnecessary. It would be like saying "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in writing by authors over the age of 18, over its necessity, significance and effect." But of course that is not the point at stake here. This specific aspect of the dispute is really whether the overall historiographical controversy (over necessity etc) is in some way represented differently by British commentators when compared against their French/German counterparts specifically because those of the former who can read only English are unable to get access to certain non-English writings. My position is that that assertion, however stated, is too controversial and too minor to go into the article's lede. Thomask0 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Rjensen[edit]

The German and French authors do not say much one way or the other about the British battle. Somme did not have a major impact on the psychology of Germans or the French (or the Americans). The battle was a major psychological shock to the British (and to the Australians and Canadians) from which the civilians never wavered--it was and is today a central element in their interpretation of the horrors of the war. The revisionists argue the generals did the best they could and therefore are not donkeys. That argument has not resonated very well with public. The idea that the British generals in 1916 2 years into the war still did not understand modern warfare is a shocking admission by Revisionist historians; add to it the notion that the same generals failed to use their new gained knowledge for two more years, and the British generals look pretty stupid. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox_Olympics_Kosovo#STOP REMOVING ALBANIA![edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by PjeterPeter on 13:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Battlestar Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Notice_Of_Dispute_Resolution_Regarding_.27International_Co-Production.27_Issue[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Twobells on 12:02, 22 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

Battlestar Galactica 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production as reflected by the numerous legitimate citations, editors have employed increasingly desperate measures to prevent the article reflecting that. They have employed Original Research, disputed straight forward citations and after extensive discussion refuse to be guided to neutrality and revert any edit that includes citations confirming the show was a UK-US international production. One editor has then taken upon themselves to follow my edits around wikipedia onto another Anglo-American TV co-production and started reverting long-standing consensual articles there also.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Everything, talk history discussion, users page discussion and 3rd party discussion including admin. I agreed with admin to come to DR to resolve this nasty situation before it becomes even worse. I admit to stupidly losing my temper and committed along with other editors 3RR at one point, luckily admin agreed I was working towards article neutrality rather than being NPOV.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that DRN moderators can review the evidence and determine a solution as discussion is getting nowhere, I wish the article to reflect the UK's contribution as reflected by the citations, not NOR and that's it. Not a lot seemingly but one impossible to resolve without moderation it seems. I would also like to get a policy ruling at some point on international co productions and how they are presented on Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by DrMargi[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Drovethrughosts[edit]

Your intention of what exactly you want in the article is still very unclear, which makes this difficult to resolve. When you added the co-production content to the article, I did not disagree, I simply tweaked it for the better ([26][27]). You talk about NPOV, but you continually tried to push Sky1 and the UK's involvement as if it were more than the main series producer, Universal Television, by always placing their names first, giving the impression of more importance, which is false ([28][29]). As long as you're fine with this version of the article (which mentions the co-production, but in factual manner), we should be good. Other notes: the UK is not country of origin with the U.S. (though I'm still uncertain if you're still fighting for this), because the UK or Sky1 holds no copyright to this series in any way–the copyright holder to BSG is Universal, which I've said several times to you, but you never acknowledge this piece of information in the previous discussions. As for the lead, the only way for it to read "is a co-production television series" (or whatever wording you want) would be if the Sky1's involvement was for the entire series run, but it wasn't (it was one season out of four). Anything else would be giving more credit where it isn't due. On a personal note, I'm going on vacation for a week in two days, so I don't plan on any further involvement with this. I've said everything I've had to say on subject, all my comments can be read at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#US/UK co-production revisited and Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding 'International Co-Production' Issue. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say consensuses has been reached just yet, because I am not in favor of it saying co-production in very first sentence. The series is of American origin, thus that's how it should be described. It can be in a separate sentence like I how I had originally, which would read something like, "The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season". The UK is listed in the infobox under "first show in" and Sky1 could be added as a producer with the seasons it produced in parentheses; however, the UK does belong in country of origin. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Twobells[edit]

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

I must say that you Drovethrughosts have been the more reasonable editor and that it is my belief we can work together. Actually what I want is simple and always has been, the attempted sophistry has never come from my side, essentially it is extremely straight forward, that like all other wiki co-production tv shows the info-box and lede reflect the contribution, that's it, nothing confusing about that and never has been. The issue isn't about copyright, the issue is about international co productions, in that production companies produce a tv show together as reflected by the citations and the info-box which is standard wiki practice on all international co-production TV shows. I have never wanted to push one network over another, all I've ever wanted is the article to reflect the citations, that BSG 2004 originally was a Anglo-American co production. Yes, the lede should read 'co-production' not mash-up country abbreviations like 'UK-US' and have UK, US in the info-box (that is purely alphabetical not pov!) However, I am more than happy for the info box to read 'US' first if thats the issue? Twobells (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • note, it looks like consensus has been reached with one editor at this very late stage, it is my hope that Drmargi can agree, resolving the issue. Twobells (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Talk:Battlestar Galactica_(2004_TV_series)#Notice_Of_Dispute_Resolution_Regarding_.27International_Co-Production.27_Issue discussion[edit]

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

Coordinator's comments: Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. Please refrain from discussing the case until such time as if and when a volunteer chooses to accept the case and opens it for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Volunteer's comments[edit]

Hello, I'm pcfan500. I accept this case. pcfan500talk|my contribs 10:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the evidence, I think that maybe User:Twobells's addition of the fact that the show was cancelled should be referenced with a reliable source. Don't re-add it until you have a reliable resource. References are required on Wikipedia. pcfan500talk|my contribs 10:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that any POV pushing occurred, just some unsourced edits. I agree with Twobell's idea of putting the TV studios in alphabetical order (this improves the flow).


Suggestions[edit]

  • Twobells, you keep saying that the show was cancelled. Please give a source. Don't re do the edit. Just reply with the source and I will tell you if it's fine.
  • It doesn't matter with putting whichever TV names first. It does not really give an impression of importance or violate NPOV.
  • Drmargi, you haven't given a summary of the dispute; please do so. Thanks.
  • Please reply here with suggestions or what you think about these. Remember that dispute resolution is about compromise. pcfan500talk|my contribs 14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The show being cancelled or ending is not a problem, I have no idea where that idea came from or how you viewed that as an issue, as it was never mentioned here. Production companies are usually listed per credit order, like everyone else in the infobox (cast, producers, etc.); thus should be consistent. And yes, being listed above another does imply more importance, that's why we list actors per their billing order and not alphabetical. I feel my comprise above if the best way to go, as it adds what Twobells wants, but presents it in the most factual way possible. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#How much "Background" is appropriate?[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Curly Turkey on 03:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart#Names[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 174.254.194.9 on 06:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Pope Joan[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 189.8.107.196 on 17:25, 24 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

The fact that one Catholic pope in the Dark Ages would have been a woman in disguise (commonly referred to as Pope Joan) has always been a controversial one - but this article's non-neutral POV makes it seem like no such controversy exists, and gives the Catholic Church's current official position as a true, undispustable fact.

It's a fact that it was widely believed for centuries, including by catholics, that the female Pope had existed - a statue depicting her, labeled Pope Joan, has been displayed among other Pope statues in the Italy's Siena Cathedral until 1700 (when the then Pope ordered its removal); she is depicted in works of art, theatre and literature from all around Europe, and even though the Vatican has finally stated that she was only a fictitious legend, she continues to this day to attract the interest of millions around the world, including authors like Peter Stanford and Donna W. Cross who deffend she might have existed.

As controversial a topic as it is, the article on it should of course reflect that - but, as can be seen throughout all the article's history, it's been noted for years, by many different users, that its full content reflects purely the Catholic Church's POV and was anything but neutral. However, an active team of engaged editors has through the article's history always been very quick to counter-edit any such edits, threatening the dissonant voices with bans and until now preventing even a broader discussion regarding the neutrality of the article from taking place.

A neutral article needs at least mentioning who deffends her,what they argue, even if one then counterbalances each of them with supposed explanations and concludes that there's not sufficient proof that she ever existed (what is NOT at all the same thing as saying that there's sufficient proof that she did NOT exist). People have tried doing so/making the article neutral for years, but each of their editions has always been reverted without real discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Ongoing debate in the appropriate Talk page. The discussion, however, is going in circles and nowhere, since the users who have for years edited out all mentions that do not follow 100% the Catholic Church's POV will simply discredit every single source that contradicts them as being not even worthy of having their existences acknowledged.

How do you think we can help?

It'd be helpful if simply more people were to read the topic, read the Talk page and then comment on whether they find the current text neutral. The topic itself offends some people's personal convictions, and it happens that these are almost the only people who care about the topic enough as to write on it and discuss it and they end up tiring away the less engaged casual passers-by. Simply having more neutral outsiders read, comment and rewrite the text in a neutral POV should solve the issue.

Summary of dispute by Farsight001[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Cuchullain[edit]

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

189.8.107.196's summary shows that much of this dispute is behavioral, not content-based. The accusations that there's a conspiracy of editors enforcing the "the Catholic Church's POV" and quashing all discussions are totally baseless and out of line. Whatever neutrality concerns exist in the article just get clouded over by the anon's edit warring, comments about contributors, and battleground behavior.
The anon elides the fact that their complaints largely focus on the lead section, and that the rest of the article is in a poor state. Rather than fix the body, they've initiated an edit war over the intro. None of the article's problems will be resolved this way, or any way beside rewriting the body with the best available sources.
This has caused considerable confusion. Below, 177.76.41.164 writes that editors are "deliberately omitting" certain facts, such as details about Siena Cathedral's bust of Joan. There's been some dispute over how this material (which I added) is handled in the intro, but despite 177.x's claims, the details are already in the article body. Again, what the article needs is an overhaul in the body.
I tried to rewrite the intro using standard academic works on Pope Joan. These sources speak to a consensus among scholars that Pope Joan is a myth. There are a few writers who still claim she was real, but they're basically a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. As I said on talk, Diana Cross is a fiction writer, and Peter Stanford isn't a historian, he's a journalist. More to the point, Stanford's book on Joan has been harshly received by historians.[30][31] It can't be used to override cited claims from respected sources.
As a final point, Scolaire says that some folks want to keep out all mention of Stanford and Cross. This isn't true. It's perfectly fine to include them in the article body (with the necessary explanation to how they're viewed by the experts). Adding them to the introduction, however, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Again, what we need is better treatment of the article body.--Cúchullain t/c 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 191.222.109.81[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Kansas_Bear[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by 177.76.41.164[edit]

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

The page could indeed be rewritten in a more neutral way. I don't know much about the topic itself, but as others have said, when you dedicate some time going through the page's edits history you end up finding out a lot of valid and pertinent and documented data that indeed was removed from the article for no given reason, and all said edits are indeed always favoring a position that the story is complete bogus. I myself quite think it is actually bogus, but rather than allowing me to reach that conclusion after giving me all the history of the issue and even the conspiracy theories, the page indeed shoves into the reader's face not gently at all what the editors/writers' point of view is, deliberately omitting even interesting facts regarding the story which, even if not proving the conspiratiotists' theories, isn't well regarded by the Vatican (like the fact that there was a precise date when a Pope declared Pope Joan not to have existed; and the fact that it was only after that and at the Pope's request that Joan's bust was removed from the papal busts collection at the Catholic Cathedral of Siena; also, there aren't mentions or images to the numerous images of a female figure in full papal style, Papal tiara included, to this day displayed even in the Vatican, which, even if having different explanations, are indeed one of the arguments used by the conspirationists.

Simply put, the OP does seem to have sort of a valid point when saying that the page's edits history does reveal engaged activism / permanent watch by a group of users who seem to be way more interested in deffending the current official position of the Church than in having a good Wikipedia article.

And finally, the fact that the opponent editors managed to get the OP banned from Wikipedia for no reason other than reverting unwelcome edits (well referenced and pertinent edits the OP had made in other sections of the article that were not directly related to the disputed topic were deleted without justification by his opponents among the edit war) kind of adds weight to his/her accusations of censorship... 177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Summary of dispute by Scolaire[edit]

One side wants to state as fact that there is an ongoing controversy over the existence of Pope Joan, citing Peter Stanford and Donna Cross. I don't see any ongoing controversy in the real world, and those two authors are not suitable sources for that claim, because they are not academic historians. However, the other side does not want those authors' views to be considered at all, which I think is going to the other extreme. It was a revelation to me, on reading the reverted, but sourced, edits, to find that there are people notable enough to be published who say they believe in the legend at least to some extent. Therefore I think it is worth a brief mention. This is consistent with WP:DUE. It would also, without making it appear that there is a lively academic debate going on, at least answer the people who say that the minority point of view is being censored, or that the article is written solely from a Catholic Church POV. I am not arguing that she existed, only that is worth mentioning that a couple of people do. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Wetman[edit]

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

Talk:Pope Joan discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • (Previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers): "The fact that," "widely believed," and borderline accusations of Catholic censorship... A completely non-neutral summary that argues against WP:GEVAL. I'm seeing one side cite a number of academic sources, and the other citing tabloids. Please snow close this. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (Another previously uninvolved non-volunteer observation): I gave the article a *quick* lookover, so take this with as much salt as you like. At the surface it seems balanced and gives the general message that Pope Joan is fictional but that there was a time when it was believed otherwise. However, a second pass with more attention left me with the slight smell of failure of WP:NPOV (in the direction of a vague desire to shove the "legend" in the face of any passing Catholics). There's a fair sprinkle of what I think is weaseling e.g. "..said to have reigned...", "Most versions of her story...", "The one most commonly cited...", " It has been speculated ..." and so on. And there are multiple assertions with no RS offered whatsoever. Little snippets of colloquial speech also raise a grin: "during the pontificate of 'Pope Agnes ... [the Church] got on quite well." (emphasis mine).
I don't like that "legendary" in the first sentence. Judging by the rest of the article, it looks like the adjective being sought after is supposed to say that the stories are false, but "legendary" does not necessarily convey that. "Mythical" would be no better. Perhaps the simple "fictional" would work?
Finally, I'd also like to see some sources for the first part of the lead's penultimate sentence: "The legend was universally accepted as true until the 16th century, when a widespread debate among Catholic and Protestant writers called the story into question; various writers noted the implausibly long gap between Joan's supposed lifetime and her first appearance in texts". It's not clear that the two sources already provided are covering not just the assertion that the story is no longer accepted, but also the assertion that it once was "universally accepted". Thomask0 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's notes 2: I'm still not taking this or opening it for discussion, but some comments are in order:

  • @ the previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers: Thank you for your comments, which are entirely welcome here, but if there is any possibility whatsoever that you're going to continue in this discussion here at DRN or at the article talk page, please list yourselves as parties, create an initial summary section for yourself, and move your comments there.
  • @ the IP editors listed as parties and the IP editor who made an entry in Cuchullain's summary section, above : If you are a user with an account and just accidentally edited without logging in, please remove the IP listing from the user list, substitute your username if it's not already listed, and only edit in this discussion while logged in. If, on the other hand, if you're an IP-only editor, please consider creating an account and doing the same. It's really confusing to the volunteers when a number of IP editors are involved in the discussion.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Talk:Ahmad Sanjar[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by HistoryofIran on 20:28, 24 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

The problem started like this: I expanded the Ahmad Sanjar article a bit by adding some information - some of it stated that he was the longest reigning Muslim ruler until the Mongol invasions (the information was sourced). However, Qara xan then suddenly changed the sourced information by writing that Al-Mustansir Billah was the longest reigning ruler. But that is impossible, since according to this source [32], Sanjar ruled from 1097 until 1157/8 (which i added in the article but Qara xan removed it for no reason). Al-Mustansir Billah ruled from 1036 to 1094. Now, let's do some simple math; That means that Sanjar ruled in 60/1 years, while Al-Mustansir Billah ruled only in 58 years.

However, this guy simply won't accept such a simple fact and keeps denying the truth/simple fact and thinks that Britannica is a reliable source. Even if he added a reliable source, it would make no difference since it is clearly clear that Ahmad Sanjar ruled longer if we do some simple math.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, but what can i do when he denies such a simple fact and keeps reverting me?

How do you think we can help?

By telling him that what he is doing is wrong, since he ignores what i say, so i think it would be good if someone else also did that, since it seems that no baths an eye on the edits he have made and the things he have said lately.

Summary of dispute by Qara xan[edit]

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

Talk:Ahmad Sanjar discussion[edit]

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

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you for notifying me about that :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Province, Sri Lanka[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Obi2canibe on 20:48, 24 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

The lead of Northern Province, Sri Lanka stated that it was known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country and provided a RS. This was removed by 4frans4 without explanation. After a couple reverts I re-inserted the content with several additional RS. In the mean time a discussion has been ongoing on my talk page in which I have explained why the content should be kept but 4frans4 refuses to accept that his removal is against Wikipedia policies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on my talk page but it is clear we are not going to agree. A third party editor has tried to reword the content to make it acceptable to 4frans4 but he has reverted this as well.

How do you think we can help?

Confirm the content complies with Wikipedia policies and that 4frans4 is not justified in his removal.

Summary of dispute by 4frans4[edit]

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

Northern Province, Sri Lanka discussion[edit]

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

Talk:Malik-Shah I[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by HistoryofIran on 21:39, 25 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

Qara xan keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. He keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source i added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;

Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.

And when he runs out of words, then he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil. I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress.

By the way, I have left him a note so he can participate in this.

Sorry if my English sounds kinda bad right now, i am tired and frustrated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, but i am unable to do anything when he denies what a reliable source says.

How do you think we can help?

By telling him that what he is doing is wrong, since he ignores what i say and randomly accuses me of being uncivil because he has nothing more to say. He have done that several times in several articles now, which is tiring me very much, so therefor i decided to hopefully end this issue by taking it over here.

Summary of dispute by Qara xan[edit]

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

Talk:Malik-Shah I discussion[edit]

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