Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 106

Talk:Friedrich Goldmann#Influences
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

A long-standing disagreement between two editors over the meaning and inclusion of a reliably sourced statement exists on this article. No movement toward a resolution is evident.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested 3O. Obtained an opinion, but this has been rejected by one of the disputants.

How do you think we can help?

Further advice and opinions on the validity of each side's views would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Planetdust
Jerome Kohl repeatedly tries to install a misleading quote, presenting it as what must look like a composer's statement of his general influences (names of other composers). The source, an article from a musicological journal, doesn't contain an exact quote by Goldmann as Jerome Kohl makes it appear (it says "by his own admission" - i.e. as in "Goldmann was asked by an interviewer and didn't say no"). The section this is taken from seems to be about 1 particular composition (out of the 200 Goldmann wrote) and the names of influences given there contradict those given in other biographical sources on Friedrich Goldmann (by omission and the chronologically and aesthetically nonsensical naming of Dieter Schnebel, who isn't mentioned in ANY other source, while there are many sources naming a variety of influences, many of them appearing consistently). I described this problem in detail and presented such other sources (including descriptions of influences by Frank Schneider, the musicologist who has published most on Goldmann) in the talk. I made the contradictory and obviously ambiguous nature of the one disputed here very clear. Jerome Kohl, after referring to his own ears and the value of rare information on direct influences (while with Goldmann they aren't rare) in support of his insertion, instead of doing appropriate research for sources on the topic, kept pushing this particular singular source back in the text.

I'm also particularly displeased by Jerome Kohl's recent tendency on the talk page to try manipulating other users' evaluation of the talk page by repeatedly claiming that no contradictory evidence has been presented (it has) and that relevant objections he fails to address meaningfully are "repeated platitudes" - while at the same time he failed, despite producing significant amounts of text, to give ANY substantial explanation whatsoever even just on why any of the named influences could be considered as such - other than that he found them in the only source he has consulted on this.

However, the source in question might be perfectly appropriate in a separate article on the work it is related to: Symphony III (1986). Considering Goldmann's oeuvre spans 4 decades, beginning in the 1960s, information regarding possible influences on one particular work in the 3rd decade (1986) of a complex oeuvre and presenting it as general information is simply misleading and too biased to be inserted in the article.

Talk:Friedrich Goldmann#Influences discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Note: I'm currently reviewing all the arguments. Once completed, I'll officially open the case. In the meantime, we are still waiting for the summary of the dispute by Jerome Kohl. EBY (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jerome Kohl
User:Planetdust has repeatedly removed a cited clam supported by a reliable source, claiming that it is either misleading or even contrary to fact. the source, an article from a musicological journal, paraphrases the composer Friedrich Goldmann on the subject of influences on his compositional style generally. User Planetdust believes that the claim of influences, if true, applies only to one composition, but the full context of the quotation (provided at Planetdust's request on the article's Talk page) does not support this view, though that work (Goldmann's Third Symphony) is named as one piece that may display some or all of those influences. Planetdust further insists that a reliable source is not sufficient to support an otherwise uncontradicted statement, holding that the inability to find a corroborating source is in itself proof of the claim's falsity or, at least, the unreliability of the cited source. The fact that the author of the claim, Williams, published a subsequent two-page chapter on Goldmann without repeating the claim is taken by Planetdust to be a retraction by Williams. Planetdust has been invited to present, in conjunction with the supposedly dubious claim, contrary opinions on this matter supported by reliable sources, but has declined to do so, preferring instead simply to delete the claim together with its source. Naturally, the nature of influences in artworks is often difficult to pinpoint, and the source does not go into any detail beyond attributing the claim to the composer himself. Nevertheless, such a statement is precious evidence regarding a composer about whom little enough information is available. As such, it should be included in the article. Any disagreement from other reliable sources should of course also be included, so that the reader is given the best available information from which to judge the merits of the case. Suppression of sound evidence is never good practice, on Wikipedia or anywhere else.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduction by volunteer moderator and first question
Hello. Thank you for your summaries. I will be acting as volunteer moderator. Please remember that I don't claim to know anything about the content dispute or have any specific knowledge of Friedrich Goldmann. My job is to get the parties to communicate effectively towards a resolution. Here are a few ground rules: I will pose questions and will expect concise civil answers. Complaints about conduct are not permitted. Let's get started:

First question: It appears that a part of the crux of this discussion is around the inclusion of (or a similar version of) "Goldmann's commitment to new music is evinced by his acknowledgement of Varèse, Dieter Schnebel and the late style of Nono as influences on his music; in fact works by these composers were performed at the première of his own Third Symphony." - Would you agree? If not, please clarify. And if this is so - what are the specific arguments for/against? More to the point - how does it add/subtract/mislead in the article? Is it the wording, placement (maybe there should be an influences section?), or the presence of the information as sourced? EBY (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

First answer from Jerome Kohl
It is the crux of the discussion, it seems to me, not just a part of it, yes, I agree. I think I have already expressed myself on the question of what it adds to the article: it is a rather scarce bit of information about the influences that shaped the thinking of this composer. Planetdust did at one point raise an objection about placement, and I certainly had no objection about moving it to the section in which the composer's style is the focus  of discussion. In fact, I moved it to that section myself, thinking it a sensible suggestion. Planetdust deleted it again, however. I do not find it distracts of misleads in any way. I believe this is where Planetdust disagrees with me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by volunteer moderator: We're waiting on the response by Planetdust. EBY (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

First answer from Planetdust
Yes, this is the crux. The statement begins with "Goldmann's commitment to new music" - this is not in question, since Goldmann never did anything else. That makes the source even more awkward, if not entirely incompetent. Contrary to what Jerome Kohl continues to claim, there are plenty of sources on Goldmann's influences - encyclopedia articles as well as interviews. See talk at Friedrich Goldmann for a selection, see the German Wikipedia article for a long list of sources. It is just that this particular, disputed source is ambiguous (what does it refer to? Goldmann's style as a composer? Symphony 3? Goldmann's work as a conductor of that particular concert programme? We just don't know). It is extremely unlikely to reflect general influences, which is indicated by the fact that it doesn't match the information given in any of the other sources that do list influences (by omission of relevant names and introduction of unlikely names - see below).

This is not a matter of placement. Wherever this is placed in the article right now, it would suggest *general* relevance of the influences named, which we just don't know because the source doesn't tell us. Then, specifially, for two reasons it is extremely unlikely Schnebel can be considered an influence at all: A) There is no aesthetic link between Schnebel and Goldmann. Consulting any 2 biographical sources that list features of their artistic strategies will show this. Even the source in question doesn't provide anything on this. B) Due to Goldmann being East German and having had written most significant works between 1965 and 1979 (the years in which he wasn't allowed to travel to West Germany - Berlin Wall), it is extremely unlikely he could have had any profound knowledge of Schnebel's works, thus Schnebel could have hardly exerted much influence.

SUMMARY: it is unclear what this source refers to (composition? conducting? one work or an entire oeuvre?), it doesn't provide information that is "scarce", it contradicts several sources that do list influences that refer unambiguously to creative periods as a composer. Planetdust (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Second answer from Jerome Kohl
It is easy to clear up one thing here, at least. Planetdust has apparently not carefully considered the wording of Williams's text, since there is no question of Goldmann's conducting being the object of influence: "his acknowledgement of Varèse, Dieter Schnebel and the late style of Nono as influences on his music" (my emphasis). Beyond this, it is not usual in a summary of a composer's work to insist on pinpointing influences in the way Planetdust is doing ("one work or an entire oeuvre"), even if it is nice to be able to do so for clarity. We say, for example, that Schoenberg was influenced by Wagner and Brahms, without pointing to specific works of Schoenberg or passages in them; neither do we cite, on the other hand, the Ode to Napoleon Buonapart as a refutation of such a claim of influence, simply because that one piece does not have anything obvious to do with Brahms's music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Second & third question from volunteer moderator
2) The connection between Nono and Goldmann seems well established, yes? It is in the German Wikipedia article as well so that leads to the assumption. 3) So this would lead to the dispute being more about the inclusion of Varèse & Schnebel as influences. Are there many influences cited more often or more specifically in other references that make inclusion of these two seem UNDUE? Or is it that the cite itself is under question because it is not specific enough for the editor's concern?EBY (talk)

Third answer from Jerome Kohl
These questions seem directed more at Planetdust than me, since I am not objecting to inclusion of Williams's assertion. One thing about question 2 on which I would like clarification, however: No one is contesting the fact that Goldmann and Nono were acquainted, but is this intended to assume also that Nono's music or theoretical thinking in some way influenced Goldmann's music? If so, then it seems to me that there is little difference between Nono and the other two composers since, as far as I can tell, Williams is the only source that goes so far as to say that Goldmann acknowledged Nono as an influence on his music (as opposed to being a close acquaintance). BTW, Goldmann himself acknowledges the influence of Varèse, in a 1992 interview, while at the same time admitting it may not be easy to pinpoint specific examples in his compositions. This is discussed on the Talk page of the Goldmann article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Second answer from Planetdust
Yes, the cite itself is under question because it is ambiguous - and because it represents an "extremely small minority view." Yes, there are influences cited often by many sources: Boulez, Stockhausen; Nono almost everywhere; more are cited often. But: the disputed statement, as it is, is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines regarding "Neutral point of view" and "prohibition of original research." The relevant section in guidelines says: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The disputed source is the only source presented so far to claim Schnebel has had any influence on Goldmann. I repeat: there are plenty of sources that offer rather congruent lists of names (see talk). Sooner or later somebody will summarize these properly. Until then, there is no justification to have this kind of singular finds in the article. Planetdust (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth answer from Jerome Kohl
I think Planetdust may be misusing the quotation from "Neutral point of view", and "Original research" does not apply at all to statements verified by reliable sources. There are minority points of view and then there are minority points of view. In the present case, for example, Goldmann himself is an extremely small minority, but one that can hardly be ignored. I am not sure whether Planetdust's comment here was made before or after my addition to the article Talk page earlier today, but it turns out that Williams appears to be relying for this disputed information on a 1988 article by Frank Schneider, which in turn contains an interview with Goldmann where the composer himself discusses the influence of Varèse, Schnebel, and Nono on his music. Schneider describes Goldmann's relationships with both Nono and Schnebel as "Freundschaften" (friendships), and in the interview Goldmann describes the common concern he shared with Schnebel about the re-admission of traditional genres such as the symphony, after the rejection of them by the European avant-garde in the 1950s and 60s. He also says that the impact of these three composers on his music is more palpable than that of the well-known works of Boulez or Stockhausen. So, do the "many other sources" who say the opposite (according to Planetdust—I do not have access to many of the sources he mentions) carry more weight than the words of Goldmann himself? I think not but, to make for a more lively discussion, I do not see why these clashing points of view should not be presented side by side in the article. Let the reader decide who should be believed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Third answer from Planetdust
Please quote the exact section from Guidelines that says "reliable sources" (if this is one) are not subject to the Neutral Point of View / Original Research policies. I couldn't find such a guideline. Then, what is a "reliable source"? Is "Tempo" a peer-reviewed journal? So: Jerome Kohl just claimed: Williams "appears" to be quoting a Schneider article, but fails to identify his source? But we don't know of course (see my answers 1 & 2 above) So how would this be "reliable"? At this point, a warning: Jerome Kohl just claimed that Schneider (1988) wrote "the impact of these three composers on his music is more palpable" than others - while the section he quoted in support of that evaluation over at the article's Talk page DOESN'T SAY ANY SUCH THING. There, Schneider actually says Schnebel formulated the "Gegenposition", i.e. the "opposite position" to Goldmann's symphonic efforts. How that is understood as a statement supportive of "influence" is beyond comprehension. Schnebel's work in question is from 1984 - that may actually make Goldmann (whose Symphony 1 is from 1972/73) an influence on Schnebel.

Since we still discuss Jerome Kohl's efforts to install Williams as a source- not Goldmann, not Schneider -: it is against Guidelines, it doesn't say anything meaningful, the User doesn't know what it refers to exactly or what other source it is really based on, and we are being presented manipulated readings of other sources to force this through.Planetdust (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fifth answer from Jerome Kohl (responding Planetdust's questions)
I wish you had made it clear a long time ago that you do not understand some of these guidelines and policies. I assumed from your rhetoric that you understood them. I apologise for my misinterpretation, and am happy to clarify these things now, point by point.
 * 1. Please quote the exact section from Guidelines that says "reliable sources" (if this is one) are not subject to the Neutral Point of View / Original Research policies. I couldn't find such a guideline.

The guideline you seek is at Identifying reliable sources, where it states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * 2. Then, what is a "reliable source"?

Reliable sources are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Verifiability as "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'." A third-party source, in turn, is defined as "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material." The article Identifying reliable sources "discusses the reliability of various types of sources". Amongst other things, it gives the definition of a source, then what exactly "published" means, and how context can affect both of these things. The real question, however, is what constitutes reliability (beyond being third-party and published). The guideline gives priority to "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks", which it says "are usually the most reliable sources." A little further on, it elaborates on this: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." At this point, it introduces the problem of conflicting points of view amongst reliable sources. This addresses your question about NPOV in relible sources: "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent."
 * 3. Is "Tempo" a peer-reviewed journal?

Yes, it is.
 * 4. So: Jerome Kohl just claimed: Williams "appears" to be quoting a Schneider article, but fails to identify his source? But we don't know of course (see my answers 1 & 2 above)

This is not entirely correct. Williams lists his sources on p. 30 of his article. Now that you ask (and I understand that you do not have access to Williams’s article), they are: Although the paragraph in which the disputed sentence occurs bears a footnote: "See Schneider, 1988b, 29–32: for an abbreviated biography and a works list", this does not actually attribute the statement to this source. Williams may have drawn his information in this case from any of the six listed references.
 * Ulrich Dibelius, 1988, Moderne Musik II, 1965-1985 (Munich).
 * Hanspeter Kyburz, 1994, notes to CD of Goldmann's music. WERGO, Mainz, WER 6265-2.
 * Utz Riese, 1992, "Postmodern Culture: Symptom, Critique, or Solution to the Crisis of Modernity? An East German Perspective", New German Critique, 57, Fall.
 * Frank Schneider, 1998a, "Angemessene Reaktionen: Friedrich Goldmanns 'Ensemblekonzert 2'", MusikTexte, 23.
 * Frank Schneider, 1988b, "Neubau mit Einsturzgefahr: Analytische Reflexionen zur Sinfonie 3 von Friedrich Goldmann", Melos, L/2.
 * Frank Schneider, 1993, "Paul Dessau und die Neue Music der siebziger Jahre in der DDR", paper presented at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in a conference on New Music, Aesthetics, Ideology. To be published in Conference Proceedings.
 * 5. So how would this be "reliable"?

"Tempo" is regarded as a reliable source, because it is a "reputable peer-reviewed source" that publishes articles that have been "vetted by the scholarly community", per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * 6. At this point, a warning: Jerome Kohl just claimed that Schneider (1988) wrote "the impact of these three composers on his music is more palpable" than others - while the section he quoted in support of that evaluation over at the article's Talk page DOESN'T SAY ANY SUCH THING. There, Schneider actually says Schnebel formulated the "Gegenposition", i.e. the "opposite position" to Goldmann's symphonic efforts. How that is understood as a statement supportive of "influence" is beyond comprehension.

Beyond your comprehension, perhaps. I have no difficulty understanding how an opposing view (Gegenposition) may be as influential as a supporting one in shaping a stance. But neither your comprehension nor mine is relevant, since we are not reliable sources. Williams, however, is a reliable source, as explained above.
 * 7. Schnebel's work in question is from 1984 - that may actually make Goldmann (whose Symphony 1 is from 1972/73) an influence on Schnebel.

I did not know when Schnebel’s work was written. This is not mentioned by Goldmann, Schneider, or Williams. If you have a reliable source that asserts Goldmann’s influence on Schnebel, then by all means, put this into both Schnebel and Goldmann’s articles. This has no bearing on the present disussion, however.
 * 8. Since we still discuss Jerome Kohl's efforts to install Williams as a source- not Goldmann, not Schneider -: it is against Guidelines, it doesn't say anything meaningful

I beg to differ. Everything I have said up to this point demonstrates that Williams is a reliable source according to all the guidelines.
 * 9. the User doesn't know what it refers to exactly or what other source it is really based on, and we are being presented manipulated readings of other sources to force this through. 

Assuming "it" means Williams, and “The User” means me, all we can ever know is what a reliable source states. If it would help, I am perfectly willing to substitute a direct quotation from Williams in place of the paraphrase. In fact, my own published writings have been criticised more than once for using direct quotation too much instead of paraphrase. In general, it does not matter what a reliable source might be based on, unless that source is disputed, in which case the question of relative weight of the conflicting opinions is raised (see below).
 * 10. Returning to the question of NPOV: In the Wikipedia NPOV guideline it says: “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” A little further on, it addresses cases such as the present one: “Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.” Planetdust is proposing the suppression of reliable sources representing significant views (including those of the subject of the article, Goldmann, as well as his commentators Schneider and Williams) and, as such, is attempting to impose his bias, instead of presenting all points of view that are verifiable by reliable sources. Suppressing reliablly sourced interpretations in order to promote opposing interpretations is itself a violation of NPOV. I agree that the question of balance of opposing views (weight) is a separate issue but, so far, I have not seen any evidence whatever that Goldmann's, Schneider's, or Williams's opinions have been said by any reliable source to be wrong. The best Planetdust has been able to do is cite sources that do not happen to confirm the opinions he disbelieves.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth answer by Planetdust
I guess everybody will appreciate if I don't comment in detail - so I'll try to be as brief as possible:


 * a) Williams does not link Schneider (1988) to this exact statement on influences ("link" as in "footnote", not as in "that's what I think it must be referring to").
 * b) Schneider does not call Schnebel an influence. "Gegenposition" still means "opposite" or "counter-position" (not "view"). How this is understood as something confirming Goldmann being influenced by Schnebel is quite likely not just beyond my comprehension. At best, both statements are unrelated - Schneider is then rather an instance of disconfirmation, not of confirmation.
 * c) Over at the article Talk page, all sources that do list influences and which I have checked so far are identified, and not one mentions Schnebel. We have been waiting for Jerome Kohl to produce even just one source other than Williams linking the words "influence" and "Schnebel." There is a consensus across most Secondary Sources on Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono, with several more names appearing multiple times.
 * d) Williams's statement is brief and doesn't even claim to contain any original thought (a name dropped: influence - in which regard? on what?). It is an entirely insignificant, singular opinion (if it reflects an opinion at all) while it is aesthetically misleading - Jerome Kohl himself has provided the Secondary Source explanation of why: "Gegenposition." (see above)

I'm sure Jerome Kohl will add other rounds of inexhaustible chatter on this scrap of a find instead of directing his energies to contributing to an article section on influences that's up to scholarship and NPOV policies. Well, life is short. Enjoy. EBY, please take over. Planetdust (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Response by Volunteer Mediator I've been tracking these sources and arguments and even researching on my own and it seems to come down to this: the argument is bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS. Dozens of other articles broadly include influences on composers without this level of challenge. Plantedust, this is teetering on (if not outright) WP:REHASH. The influence is cited, the source is reliable, and there is nothing that adding this does to harm the article and it does do something to broaden the understanding of the subject in the context of his work. I strongly recommend that we find the most appropriate way to include influences in this article and because the reference is broad. The article on Claude Debussy has a section on influences and specifies both broad influences on his work (like the artist Whistler) and specific influences (like a piece directly influence by a Mallarmé poem). Alternately, the article on Richard Wagner embeds influences in the narrative of the subject like Early works (to 1842) has a reference to contemporaries. Since both of you have strong investment in this article, the best answer would be to find a way to agree on how this information would be most fairly folded into the article.EBY (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply to Mediator from Jerome Kohl This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'm willing to listen to any suggestion from Planetdust on how to structure this material.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply to Mediator from Planetdust I absolutely agree a broadly referenced section on influences, such as the ones EBY showed as examples, is desired. The current state of discussion is: the disputed statement turned out to be based on a mistake (see new article Talk page entries). Thus "Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as [...] getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored." Despite this, Jerome Kohl still maintains there's no solution without including the disputed statement. If the thing in question can't be touched at all in order to find a compromise, how can we possibly find it?

However, EBY, we still need to hear how this doesn't apply anymore: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, IT DOES NOT BELONG IN WIKIPEDIA regardless of whether it is true or not.". It appears that Williams (1995) has never been cited by anyone, including Williams himself (who wrote on Goldmann again in 2013, but chose to ignore his own 1995 article). HOW is this significant? EBY said inclusion is not harmful: it is, because wrong claims ("wrong" as in "translation mistakes") of a composer "acknowledging" a particular influence create wrong music history. But "harmfulness" is not relevant to judging this: significance and consensus on inclusion are, both of which are missing.

My suggestion is we collaborate on a broadly referenced section of influences. I believe Jerome Kohl and I have gathered quite a list and it should be fairly easy to write a well sourced section on this base. Planetdust (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart#Names
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

This is an attempt to resolve a dispute over names of contestants of the show. The users revisions insist that only the nicknames are used for the page when the source (CBS) provides the full name of each contestant. The two users either are working together but have dismissed any attempt to post the full names on the page as "original research" even though it's clear the names are on the source. They even want to have the page protected as if someone is fabricating the list of contestants which is not true.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to use the talk page, but only one user has responded and the other just reverts and posts a generic warning.

How do you think we can help?


 * Explain why only the nickname are to be used on the article while the sources use their full names. If the source discloses their full names then it can't be original research.
 * Allow the article to post the full name per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * Nip a potential edit war in the bud.

Summary of dispute by Katanin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Gloss
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 108.6.38.122
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart#Names discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#How much "Background" is appropriate?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)
 * (The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)

Dispute overview

A dispute has arisen over whether certain background content should be added to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Some parties believe it's important context to the events; others believe it's irrelevant, misleading, WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH. The dispute has been acrimonious.

I added this text after finding this kind of background info in numerous news sources. It quickly went through several edits by others—some adding things, others deleting things—and it was moved several times: into a separate demographics section, and finally deleted. It has since been editwarred over several times and discussed several times on the talk page, quite acrimoniously, and accusations have been made that it is Original Research or WP:SYNTH, and that it implies the Muslim community is to blame for the attacks.

The current version agreed upon by those is one that honed by Gamebuster19901—one of those originally opposed to the paragraph. He re-added his version of the paragraph, and it immediately was reverted again, with reiteration of the same accusations on the talk page. Despite numerous requests to demonstrate (a) where WP:OR has taken place; (b) where WP:SYNTH has taken place; or (c) where the paragraph implies blame on any group—no such evidence has been forthcoming.

The discussion is deadlocked, and despite an open RfC, few seem to want to wade into it—I imagine due to the level of acrimony, despite an attempt on my part to reboot the discussion with the understanding that we would: (1) Assume Good Faith (2) Back up all assertions with evidence. (3) Focus on the argument, not the arguer, and avoid rehashing older disputes. All three of these guidelines were quickly broken.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Numerous other discussions (now archived) on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By—
 * determining if the accusations are legitimate
 * determining what concerns are relevant to a consensus
 * determining what the consensus actually is
 * (pipe dream?) diffuse the acrimony in the discussion and get all parties to consider each others points

Summary of dispute by Gamebuster19901
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by MoorNextDoor
Curly Turkey combined material from multiple sources (WP:SYNTH) while the event was still unfolding, hours before the suspects were killed and the other related hostage crisis (WP:RSBREAKING). The only explanation he gave as to why such a paragraph should be included was and still is: ".. so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French". I honestly believe that he is genuinely surprised that a French Muslim could speak perfect French, but is that a good enough reason to include such nonsense in the article, especially now that we know that Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks and that access to reliable secondary sources is easily achieved ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Abductive
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by PuffinSoc
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zup326
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Yug
Article became unworkable due to hardline reading of wikipedia rules. "Sources need" converted into "all without direct word-by-word source is deleted". Sum of facts leading to logical deductions were deleted. The linkage of the attackers being geographically from well known poor areas (sourced), and linked this background with well know social tensions in is area (2005 & 2007 Paris unrests, sourced), this linkage and both statements were systematically delete since 2 sources were there, but no source word-by-word linking the attacker to a harsh socio-economical context. Sourced sensationalism increased in visibility, while logical deduction and common sense, even summarizing other sourced wikipedia articles, were deleted. It was thus impossible to write a balanced neutral section in urgency and then dig for sources, sensationalism won. Yug (talk)  17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vice regent
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Sayerslle
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Prhartcom
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Visite fortuitement prolongée
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Epicgenius
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Shabeki
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by FormerIP
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The material in question is basically a collection of relatively disparate facts presented as a set of sociological antecedents to the Charlie Hebdo murders. It is contentious among editors, not neutrally presented, not adequately sourced (although the sourcing has been improved over progressive versions) and does not appear factually accurate. The main problem, though, is that it is really editor commentary, which is never appropriate in a Wikipedia article. If it is useful to have this type of sociological analysis in the article, it should present a range of views found in reliable sources, clearly relate them to the subject of the article and attribute them. Formerip (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Legacypac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Liftarn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#How much "Background" is appropriate? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Template talk:Infobox_Olympics_Kosovo#STOP REMOVING ALBANIA!
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

"FkpCascais", an editor that is highly depended on nationalistic issues, has been constantly violating the following Wikipedia page.

The flag of Albania should be included in the infobox for the following reasons:

1. Following Kosovo's independence and the IOC's resistance to recognise Kosovo, athletes born there, decided to participate under the flags of Serbia and Albania. Therefore, if the Serbian flag stays in the infbox, the Albanian one should as well, as those were the official other-related appearances of Kosovo's athletes (and let's not forget that the basic rule of the Olympics is that the competition is about the athletes, not their countries of origin).

2. If the Albanian flag is removed from the infobox, because *apparently* you can't add athlete's personal choices' countries, then you should remove Serbia as well, because de facto Kosovo was not part of Serbia since February 2008 (before the 2008 Summer Olympics)

3. This case is similar to the Independent Olympic Team appearance. Basically if athletes from one country can't participate for their country (like Kosovar athletes for Kosovo), they participate under ANOTHER flag, in this case the IOP; and if the IOP flag is added to the infobox, the Albanian one should as well. Majlinda Kelmendi was qualified in judo in the 2012 Olympics but was UNABLE to participate for Kosovo, so she participated for Albania as her only solution; this means that the Albanian flag must stay in due to the fact she was qualified but couldn't compete for Kosovo.

Another thing to keep in mind, is once again the Serb athletes. Basically they decided to participate for Serbia because Kosovo was not in the Olympics but was independent since the 2008 Olympics; and if the Albanian flag is removed just because it was Majlinda's choice; it's an absolute simple thing to know that it's the same for Serb athletes. they CHOSE Serbia, that's why the Serbian flag is there.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried explaining in the template's talk page, my talk page and his as well. He seems not to understand the basic idea behind the page. We have had a similar discussion with another editor, and User:IJA has also backed the fact that the Albanian flag must remain in the infobox; together with the Serbian one as the athletes (rule 1 of the Olympics) chose to represent.

How do you think we can help?

The only suitable solution is by keeping the Albanian flag in the infobox; because it refers to a Kosovo-athlete participating under that flag DESPITE being qualified for Kosovo; but was unable due to the resistance by the IOC to recognise Kosovo.

Let's keep in mind the IOC flag. If athletes from a country are not allowed to participate under their national flag, they participate under the IOC flag. Same for Kosovo, Majlinda Kelmendi was qualified for the Olympics but was UNABLE to partipate.

Summary of dispute by FkpCascais
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by CambridgeBayWeather
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by IJA
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Template talk:Infobox_Olympics_Kosovo#STOP REMOVING ALBANIA! discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'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, this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor
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":
 * The Atlantic
 * The Independent
 * The Guardian
 * Billboard
 * USA Today
 * Yahoo
 * Spin
 * Marie Claire
 * Bellingham Herald
 * National Post
 * Glamour

On the singer-songwriter article it states: "Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano" She regularly performs acoustic and accompanied by her ukelele And is pictured in professional photo shoots that are published by reliable sources with her ukelele in the vein of an acoustic singer/singer-songwriter

The article states '''Singer-songwriters' lyrics are personal, but veiled by elaborate metaphors and vague imagery, and their creative concern was to place emphasis on the song rather than their performance of it. Most records by such artists have a similarly straightforward and spare sound that placed emphasis on the song itself.''' - See the All About That Bass (which is considered as a protest song) and Title (EP) (where she was compared to other singer-songwriters Jenny Lewis and Neko Case) articles which entirely back this up.

The argument against her not being a singer-songwriter in the dispute seems to be solely based on the fact that she also sings pop music and is not "folk". However, the singer-songwriter article states that singer-songwriters do in fact sing popular music and not solely folk. Taylor Swift, Jason Mraz, Alanis Morrissette are a few of such singer-songwriters for example.

On the singer-songwriter article it states 'Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition. It also states: "Singer-songwriter" is used to define popular music artists who write and perform their own material, which is often self-accompanied generally on acoustic guitar or piano.[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 and just last month with her Christmas song "I'll Be Home" and in October with her Thanksgiving Special. And in the liner notes of her Title (EP) she is credited as a songwriter, composer, instrumentalist and executive producer for every single song. The very same singer-songwriter article lists Jagged Little Pill as an example yet the entire album was not entirely produced and composed by Morissette alone but in collaboration with Glen Ballard - very much like Trainor has done with Kevin Kadish for her Title (EP) & Title (Meghan Trainor album) releases recently. All my aforementioned points support Trainor as a singer-songwriter per the the 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
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Hello! I was a co-nominator for the article's GA. I have also been involved with most of the page's construction and discussions related to it. I happened to stumble upon an edit-war today and decided to resolve it. I went to the article's talk page and wanted to know if there was a way the GAN wouldn't be failed. But it was failed. I haven't edited the article since (or even during) the dispute. I believe that Trainor is a singer-songwriter due to all the reasons provided above and her first two albums she wrote/produced/composed alone. Marano '' fan 08:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Winkelvi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The article has experienced edit warring over the term singer-songwriter vs. singer, songwriter. Common sense in addition to the actual definition of what constitutes a singer-songwriter (as opposed to a singer and songwriter) appears to dictate keeping the article from putting Trainor put in the singer-songwriter category. I stand firm for the use of singer, songwriter (or singer and songwriter) but not singer-songwriter.

Summary of dispute by SNUGGUMS
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I wasn't really involved in the edit war, but did link to an RfC on the use of "singer-songwriter" in hopes that it would resolve the content dispute. Apparently it wasn't enough, and the arguments kept coming. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Joseph Prasad
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I only reverted twice, but there was a lot of edit warring on a dispute of singer-songwriter and singer AND songwriter, and I slightly contributed to that, but I have said to discuss on talk page. I'm not that familiar with her career and had to ask other editors for assistance to put her in that category, I just recently started editing this and came on to the dispute. The constant edit war dispute has gone on for quite a while with no consensus. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Atomic Meltdown
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Honestly, these fanboys are the reason why this is still going on. We can all agree that Trainor is in fact a Singer and a Songwriter. And there examples of Taylor Swift and Drake Bell, those are people they like too. One more thing from me and that's it, singer-songwriter only applies to acoustic musicians not Trainer who is a pop artist and those two acoustic albums you bring up are nowhere to be found online or on her page. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

Summary of dispute by Livelikemusic
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

As someone who stumbled upon the article, and noticed the brief edit-war between editors over singer-songwriter vs singer and songwriter, I went to the page of a singer-songwriter, and per definition, it appears Trainor does not fall under that headline; upon changing, I was reverted. I opened a talk page discussion to gain consensus, and was reverted once again, despite opening of talk discussion.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the 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 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 Dispute resolution and Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - 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, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon and Keithbob, this request for dispute resolution assistance seems to have fallen through the cracks. I'd be interested to know why.  Thanks,  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  07:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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
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
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
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
To be clear, my thoughts on whether Trainor should be listed as a singer-songwriter do not stem from the Wikipedia article definition of singer-songwriter. My thoughts on this are based on tradition as well as who is and has been listed in the singer-songwriter category. It's also based on what actual singer-songwriters have to say about the subject. As already stated above (it appears to have been either dismissed or missed, not sure which): To quote Dire Straits founding member David Knopfler on what a singer-songwriter truly is, "It's simply about the song". 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 (which is what Trainor does). "Singer-songwriter" is about art that lasts and remains timeless and defining. Trainor's music does not fit into that category at all. Especially so early in her career.

With the saturation of music on the internet and the knowledge of who the true singer-songwriters are and have been (Harry Chapin, Bob Dylan, Gordon Lightfoot, Elton John, Carole King, Carly Simon, James Taylor, Paul Williams, Randy Newman - to name only a few) I think most people today don't really know the true definition of "singer-songwriter" in comparison to "singer and songwriter". Trainor is a singer, a performer, an entertainer, and she has written songs. She's not a singer-songwriter. I think it's easy to see that she is not of the same caliber as those in the list above, those who fit the true definition of singer-songwriter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Joseph Prasad
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)

Third statement by volunteer moderator (second by substitute)
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)

Statement 3.1 by moderator
We have one editor saying that she is not a singer-songwriter, and other editors saying that she is a singer-songwriter. Are the parties to this dispute willing to rely on an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other issues requiring moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by User:Winkelvi
I'm dubious about an RfC, 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 an RfC at a music-related project appropriate to the topic (if that's even possible). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Nanking
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
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.)

For the purposes of this article, I advocate that we just stick to the most recent scholarly consensus range of 40,000 to 200,000 victims of the Nanking Massacre, both civilians and POWs, within the Nanking Special Administrative District. Here at some length is the proof that this is in fact the consensus, as well as some other significant issues.

In 2007 Bob Tad Wakabayashi wrote a very well-received edited volume entitled "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" which amalgamated the work of a large number of the leading specialist scholars who have studied the Nanking Massacre. In writing the conclusion of this book, Wakabayashi states that 40,000 to 200,000 civilians and POWs massacred is the scholarly valid range of estimates. Even though he expresses some personal disagreement with some of the estimates within this range, he still notes that any estimate within this range is at least numerically possible. To quote Wakabayashi: "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000." When reviewing this book in the academic journal Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, James Leibold concurred that 40,000 to 200,000 constitutes "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". Wakabayashi's argument is further bolstered by the fact that almost all scholars outside of China who have written books or peer-reviewed article on the Nanking Massacre have given figures somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000. Akira Fujiwara(200,000), Tokushi Kasahara(160,000-170,000), Katsuichi Honda(over 100,000), Yoshida Yutaka(over 100,000), Jean-Louis Margolin(50,000-90,000), Ikuhiko Hata(40,000), and David Askew(roughly 40,000) are a few good examples. On the other hand, 40,000 to 200,000 cannot be said to be the scholarly consensus within China, where all historians advocate numbers of 300,000 or higher. However, in China there is some gap between the public views of historians, which are tightly censored, and their private views.(For examples of censorship see Wakabayashi's essay in "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38") In 2006 when historian Kaz Ross investigated the real opinions of Chinese historians in the city of Nanking on an anonymous basis, all of them gave figures between 40,000 and 150,000. They told Ross that saying this openly "would be detrimental to their careers". Ross' study provides further evidence that the approximate range of 40,000 to 200,000 is a broad-based international consensus that has successfully united almost all specialist scholars in the field. Among scholars who advocate figures lower than 40,000 or higher than 200,000, the large majority are non-specialists who have not calculated their own estimates. I have been told repeatedly that Edward L. Dreyer and Marvin Williamsen believe figures over 200,000, but neither of them has ever written more than a paragraph about the massacre in their entire careers. Furthermore, none of these non-specialist scholars have ever said how they calculated their figures, and I don't think an estimate which is not known to be based on any data should be considered part of the scholarly consensus of specialists. Odds are that most of these scholars just copied their death toll estimates ad verbatim from the verdicts of the two postwar war crimes trials, the IMTFE and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal. However, this sort of copying and pasting from a single primary source is not equivalent to the level of research carried out by the historians who have written whole books or peer-reviewed articles on the massacre which actually do explain how the death toll was calculated. For the purposes of an article on the Battle of Nanking we should not use old, outdated estimates from the 1940's which have been supplanted by better scholarship. Many recent works of scholarship, including Wakabayashi's edited volume "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" have heavily rebutted the dubious methods and evidence used by the postwar war crimes trials for calculating their figures. Furthermore, if we just take the raw estimates from the post-war war crimes trials, it would be difficult to decide which ones to use. The IMTFE variously described the death toll as "upwards of 100,000" or "over 200,000". The Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put out total figures as low as 227,680 and as high as 430,000. Basically, we can't stuff the article on the Battle of Nanking full of every unreliable estimate ever made for the death toll of the Nanking Massacre. The users Miracle Dream and MtBell have inserted the following text into the article "Estimates of the death count vary, with most reliable sources holding that 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians were massacred in this period." However, look at the sources they use to create this range. The first source is Wakabayashi's edited book on the Nanking Massacre, which gives the range of 40,000 to 200,000. Wakabayashi explains in detail using sources like burial data, eyewitness accounts, and Japanese military records why this is the empirically possible range of estimates. The second source is Leibold, who reaffirms Wakabayashi's estimate. The third source is a Christian Science Monitor article, which says that the death toll was 300,000. It contains no citations and does not say how the figure of 300,000 was calculated. The fourth source is an essay on the Second Sino-Japanese War by Marvin Williamsen, who quotes an estimate made by US military officer Frank Dorn in a 1974 book that the death toll was over 200,000 and possibly 300,000. However, Dorn's book has no citations and does not say how he calculated his figures. Is it really appropriate to take Wakabayashi's "empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range" of 40,000 to 200,000 and then simply add on to it two figures which Wakabayashi says are NOT empirically verifiable and scholarly valid. It seems like synthesis. It is true that there are some real Nanking Massacre scholars who have put forward figures above or below 40,000 to 200,000. Takeshi Hara, for instance, is a very well regarded Japanese historian and the author of many peer-reviewed articles on the massacre who believes 20,000 to 30,000 were massacred. But this is just an article on the Battle of Nanking, which doesn't have space for every estimate of the death toll ever made. For the purposes of this article, we should stick to what the majority of specialist historians say, 40,000 to 200,000.
 * The consensus of 40,000 to 200,000
 * Chinese views
 * Specialist historians v. non-specialist sources
 * The issue of synthesis

To quote another user, "Figures as high as 300,000 or as low as 10,000 are of historiographic interest only and, while they might be discussed on that basis on the Rape of Nanking article, they have no place here." Using a Google search of non-specialist history books or newspaper articles will reveal an almost infinite number of estimates, mostly of unexplained origin, some as low as zero and some as high as ten million(see David Askew's essay "Defending Nanking" for the figure of ten million). But for an article on the Battle of Nanking there is only so much room for estimates on the death toll of the Nanking Massacre. For the purposes of the article on the Battle of Nanking, we should stick to the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000.

There are few inaccuracies in Miracle Dream's figures. Even Masahiro Yamamoto noted in his book that Katsuichi Honda never explicitly said that he favored 300,000. Then in 1997 when Honda was explicitly asked what death toll estimate he did favor he said "something a bit over 100,000, but not approaching 200,000."(see The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame). Hora Tomio has mentioned in his own works that he favors an estimate of 200,000, but as he himself notes (and as Takashi Yoshida notes in his book The Making of the Rape of Nanking) that includes combat casualties, not just massacre victims. It's possible that Fujiwara Akira may have favored estimates up to 300,000 at one point, but he is on record as telling Shokun magazine in 2001 that he now favors an estimate of 200,000 which David Askew actually calls the "older orthodoxy" in contrast with the smaller modern-day consensus of "more than 120,000". Although Lloyd E. Eastman is not a specialist historian, Miracle Dream made a big mistake on that one. Eastman actually says that "[Bates] testified that of the 250,000 civilians, no less than 12,000 had been killed." On this one Miracle Dream is off by 238,000, though as I said, Eastman is not an ideal source anyway. The large majority of the scholars Miracle Dream cites are non-specialists who have never revealed how they calculated their numbers. He actually starts out by citing a New York Times article by film and music critic Stephen Holden! By and large these are not high-quality sources of information. However, I will concede that a small number of the individuals Miracle Dream cites are genuine specialist scholars from outside the mainstream range. Yoshiaki Itakura, who believes that about 15,000 were killed during the atrocity, was actually one of the most influential Nanking Massacre researchers of all time. Tian-Wei Wu is a specialist historian on the other side who gives estimates well over 300,000. Though I still favor the overall scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000, note that as an alternative compromise I also offered 10,000 to 400,000, which includes both Itakura and Wu.

Summary of dispute by Yaush
My read on this dispute is that no one is disputing the lower figure, 40,000. The dispute is over the higher figure, with CurtisNaito arguing for 200,000 and some other editors arguing for 300,000. It seems clear to me that CurtisNaito is much more familiar with the specialist literature on the casualty count than the other editors, who base their entire argument for 300,000 on non-specialist sources or on Chinese sources.

I agree with CurtisNaito on the unreliability of the non-specialist sources. Dorn, in particular, was a U.S. Army staff officer, not a historian. I have a copy of his The Sino-Japane3se War: 1937-1941 and it is clear he is opinionated, tendentious, and unreliable. He's also a bit of a plagiarist, in my opinion, since his book (published in 1973) shows remarkable parallels with the official Chinese history (published in 1971) but lists this work nowhere in his bibliography. The IMTFE estimates came much too close to the events in question, and -- do not mistake this for any kind of assertion that Japan did not engage in a clear pattern of war criminality; I regard the destruction of the Japanese Empire as a blessing to mankind -- not particularly impartial. The other authors quoted by the proponents of the 300,000 figure are nonspecialists uncritically repeating these estimates.

That leaves the Chinese scholars, and so the whole issue revolves around whether these scholars have the freedom to publish honest estimates. We now know with something like certainty that Soviet historians of the Second World War had no such freedom, based on research postdating the opening of the Soviet archives. It seems not at all implausible to me that Chinese historians on the mainland also have no such freedom. We have scholars claiming that Chinese historians have privately admitted as much to them. This is of course problematic; there are very good reasons why all such admissions would be anonymous, but that anonymity makes them impossible to independently verify. But it seems that none of these scholars ever publishes an estimate less than 300,000, which to me has the stink of a forced consensus.

I would be interested in knowing what the situation is with scholars from Taiwan, who presumably work in a different political milieu. There may be reasons why they also feel they do not have the freedom to publish figures less than 300,000, but I would like to know what figures they do publish and under what circumstances.

Summary of dispute by TH1980
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims is the scholarly consensus for Nanking, but I believe some lower estimates and some higher estimates can be included separately.TH1980 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Miracle dream
At first,I know this noticeboard discussion was created by User:CurtisNaito. I just have one question. Why did he put all users who agree with him above than who disagree with him. The first three are all users who agree with him. Then remaining are who disagree with him. I think he can simply use the alphabetical order. Actually,there are 2 month discussion, Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8, which more than 10 users involved. At last, the consensus used in this discussion is the death toll will be from 40,000 to over 300,000. Estimation by International Military Tribunal of the Far East: "its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. That these estimates are not exaggerated" That means the estimation number by IMTFE is larger than 200,000. Estimation by Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal: the death toll is over 300,000. International Military Tribunal of the Far East and Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal are no doubt to compliant with WP:RS Then based on neutrality rule, wiki should neutrally cite the reliable sources no matter where the sources from. English, Japanese and Chinese sources are all acceptable, However, User:CurtisNaito reject all Chinese sources. Moreover, he also reject the figures from International Military Tribunal of the Far East and Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal Two New York Times articles,. The first one cited 150k as the lower bound, the 2010 article cited 200k as lower bound, and 40k is not mentioned by either. However,300,000 is cited by the first article. Actually I can accept 40k as lower bound because I accept all reliable sources based on the neutrality rule of wiki I checked the previous discussion and find some table offered by other users in that discussion. In previous discussion, users: snorri offered a table. It includes the estimation from American, Japanese, Chinese and Taiwanese scholars who support range from 200,000 to 300,000. 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.)
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!Chart 7.1 Rape of Nanking Controversy in Japan: Schools and Their Opinions ! School !! Number of Victims !! Personalities 05:56, 31 December 2014‎ Miracle dream (talk)
 * Extreme Traditionalists || 300,000 or more || Honda Katsuichi
 * Moderate Traditionalists || 150,000 - 300,000 || Hora Tomio, Fujiwara Akira
 * Traditionalist Centrists || 38,000 - 42,000 || Hata Ikuhiko
 * Revisionist Centrists || 10,000 - 20,000 || Itakura Yoshiaki
 * Moderate Revisionists || 50 - 7,000 || Editors of Kaiko series
 * Extreme Revisionists || 50 || Tanaka Masaaki
 * }
 * Revisionist Centrists || 10,000 - 20,000 || Itakura Yoshiaki
 * Moderate Revisionists || 50 - 7,000 || Editors of Kaiko series
 * Extreme Revisionists || 50 || Tanaka Masaaki
 * }
 * Extreme Revisionists || 50 || Tanaka Masaaki
 * }

Summary of dispute by MtBell
Dear fellow Wikipedians, please allow me one more day to complete the summary. Thanks.
 * estimate varies


 * "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.

Ross claimed in a 2006 paper that she conducted an anonymous survey on the death toll among "Chinese university researchers in Nanjing". CurtisNaito claims that according to her survey "historians in China privately acknowledge that the death toll of the atrocity was between 40,000 and 150,000". To verify this, I contacted Professor Zhang Lianhong, dean of the Nanjing Massacre Research Center of Nanjing Normal University, for Ross's visit to Nanjing in June 2006 as described in her paper. Zhang replied: "Ross is a teacher who studies culture not history. When she came to Nanjing, I asked a graduate student accompanying her to visit the Memorial Hall. Then we had a brief talk in the afternoon. Because she doesn't speak Chinese and I am not very good at English, we didn't have any in-depth discussion. "


 * all majority views should be included


 * conclusion and proposal for compromise

Summary of dispute by Carrotkit
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. A user is attempting to delete a claim supported by reliable sources regarding the death toll of the battle. He claims that all Chinese historians disagree with this number in private. He cited a "peer-reviewed research" conducted by an unknown Japanese historian, who denied conducting a such research. After I pointed out the fact that there is not a such research, he stop discussing the matter with me. I have suggested offering the readers with claims by both sides, but this user ignored and insisted his nonsense idea that "all Chinese historians disagree with this claim" with that non-existent "research".--Carrotkit (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cwek
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Happyseeu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Comment from uninvolved editor: @Carrotkit and @CurtisNaito; It is the responsibility of the filing editors to notify all the participants that a dispute resolution process has been requested. You may place a notice both on the relevant article Talk page and the individual Talk pages of the involved editors. FelixRosch  ( TALK ) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All editors have been notified. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)


 * 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. -- Biblio  worm  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!) -- Biblio worm  02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: 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? -- Biblio  worm  03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally think that this is about as good as we are going to get and endorse it. I'm afraid of proposing any changes to your wording for fear of breaking your delicate compromise, but if I was to change anything with your wording, I would change "300,000" to "400,000". Sun Zhaiwei has proposed an estimate of 400,000 and Tien Wei Wu and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal both made estmates well in excess of 300,000. While 300,000-400,000 is definitely a minority viewpoint, it's no more a minority viewpoint that 10,000 is. Therefore, if we mention the extended range of 10,000 to x, I would make 400,000 the upper bound in order to include a broader range of individuals.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At first, I suggest people should read the previous 2 month long discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8 and the consensus. Then I collect lots of data which support range from 200,000 to over 300,000 from different scholars who have different background. It is really hard to say only "some other estimates are 10,000 to 300,000".In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking. I previous thought we should neutrally accept all figures to make a consensus so I accept range from 40,000 to 300,000 in discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8. However, it seems the range 40,000 to 100,000 is really a minority viewpoints. I suggest to exclude the figure 40,000 and put 100,000 as the lower bound of the primary viewpoint. Actually, I previously thought the figure in article Nanking Massacre is good enough to contain minority and majority viewpoint to avoid dispute. Now I am thinking about removing the minority viewpoint 40,000.
 * Moreover, it is really hard to say International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal is the minority viewpoint. It is the same as we say Nuremberg trials is minority viewpoint when we research Holocaust.The first one put range over 200,000 (for IMFTE court exhibits, figure will be 260,000) and the second one put the figure 300,000. Wiki is not the place for academic seminar. If we use our opinion to deny Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, it is kind of original research. It likes we use wiki research to deny the result of Nuremberg trials. However, we can say Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal put the estimation figure 300,000 but some Japanese historian thought it is too exaggerated. We should have no opinion on the description of Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. It would be really silly to say that it's excellent for 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. -- Biblio worm  16:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If we cannot come to a simple resolution soon, I will formally open the case. 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? -- Biblio worm  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, , and. -- Biblio worm  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." Have we reached an agreement? -- Biblio  worm  23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That version sounds fine to me.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to reply so late. I am too busy these days. For my opinion,there are many problems. At first, it is really hard to say "historian estimate 40,000 to 200,000".Actually, there is no historian's consensus for this. Different historians offered different estimations. I listed lots of estimations from historians which put the range over 200,000 or even 300,000 in my summary. From what I see, the first problem is the 40,000 is not the lower bound of primary estimation by many historians. I see lots of media cited 100,000 as the lower bound. Major judgement International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal (the same status with Nuremberg Trials) all put the estimations over than 100,000. Media like New York Times also cited figures 100,000 as lower bound , . Then 300,000 is one of the common estimation not "somewhat common estimation". It was at first supported by major judgement Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, then was supported by many scholars who I listed before. Then it is largely cited by different media. Lots of document video used this figures. It was also used by New York Times . Hence, it was supported by judgement, some scholars and lots of media. Actually, the figure over 300,000 was even cited by the book "Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times" . This books is a history textbook which was used by hundreds or 1000 Universities or High schools in United States. It is weird to say 300,000 is minority view while so many universities or high school used this figures in its history education. Actually, I have mentioned these suggestions before but it seems these suggestions were ignored. Then if you want to notices all users listed in this discussion, I guess we should also notice  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)

& : 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.?) -- Biblio worm  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 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. -- Biblio  worm  04:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * So, what do you feel is the majority view, and what do you personally think should be included? -- Biblio worm  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. 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)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that this dispute is too complicated to handle in the amount of time considered to be ideal at the DRN. As a result, I'll close this, with the recommendation that you start an RfC or go to MedCom. Thanks, and feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- Biblio worm  20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mounir Majidi
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In the article Mounir Majidi I have objected to an edit because:


 * It removed multiple references (user alternatively argued that the links are dead, not in English therefore shouldn't be used or because "wikileaks' diplomatic cables were not "official statements", but informal communications between US agents.").


 * It removed a section titled "controversy". This section only contained a reference to a corruption allegation case. Supported by two references.


 * It removed a navigation template and the external link in the external links section and placing instead a "this section is empty" template


 * Changing the date format to month first (MOS:DATETIES, MOS:DATERET)


 * Changing the birth date despite this being referenced to an official document from the Luxemburg company registry. (Apparently without bothering to check that ref)


 * Removing positions from the infobox and changing the predecessor/successor or the office start date without any explanation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk, reminding of the relevant WP policies related to dead links and references.

How do you think we can help?

By explaining some policies such is those related to references, dead links, date format, deletion of supported statements.

Summary of dispute by Chewbakadog
Thank you for taking the time to review this dispute. Let me briefly sum up the situation :
 * I suggested a new version to the Mounir Majidi page with fresh facts --> https://en.wikipedia.org/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 . According to WP:SOURCE, If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, and then Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. We have here the point of view of one person (Bemchemsi) published in the opinion section of one newspaper, which is a WP:YESPOV and needs to be removed. Also, a "controversy" section is created merely for this YESPOV, which is WP:UNDUE and needs to be removed.
 * Tachfin's arguments that I removed the external links section, that the dates weren't properly formatted, that I removed a source for the birth date even though there is no conflict on his birth date, or about the infobox (and I followed his advice in the latets version of my version ), all those arguments do not justify undoing my edits.

Overall, I am accusing Tachfin of WP:ATTACK : Tachfin is agressive, has the attitude of WP:BULLY, only accepts his own version of the page. He is full of accusations regarding Majidi, but doesn't bother to justify them. I did a bit of research and found that Tachfin created the pages Zakaria Moumni (a moroccan kickboxer accusing Majidi of torturing him of something), Yassine Mansouri, head of Moroccan CIA (where he puts a link to Majidi's page for no significant reason), Ali Anouzla (page with accusations of corruptions by Majidi)... If I didn't know any better, I would say that he has a personal thing against that Majidi guy... Thank you for hearing my POV. --Chewbakadog (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mounir Majidi discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer. I'd like to start this discussion with Wikipedia's guidance on criminal allegations. Please try to confine discussion to the specific topic. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Charges
Is but no trial was brought against him in Morocco accurate? Is but no criminal charges have been filed against him in Morocco also accurate?
 * I think it's accurate, I don't see any trial mentioned anywhere... --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Guideline
What relevance does the guidance provided at WP:CRIMINAL, specifically ''Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.'' have to this article and how the material is to be presented? --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No court of law has pronounced majidi guilty of anything. Our issue is that one journalist made accusations on a french national newspaper, but no court (at least that I know of through multiple google searches), whether it be in France or in Morocco, has ever made him guilty of anything. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Le roi prédateur
In the context of corruption charges can the book,, review here, be considered to be a reliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I've never read it... However, the review doesn't mention anything criminal about majidi. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Demain
In the context of corruption charges can the magazine Demain,, 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
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
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? --[[User:Bejnar|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
Do either of you have the title or the date of the article that appeared in the Lakome newspaper that is currently a deadlink at FN11? --Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't, but on wikileaks.org, we find this : "Authenticity and Modernity, Mohamed Mounir Al Majidi who is the head of the King's private secretariat, and the King himself.  "To have discussions with anyone else would be a waste of time""


 * and : "ONA's VP reportedly told his interlocutors that Morocco's major investment decisions were effectively made by three individuals: the King, Fouad El Himma the former Deputy Minister of Interior who now leads the Palace-backed Party of Authenticity and Modernity, and Mohamed Mounir Al Majidi, who is the head of the King's private secretariat and his principal financial advisor."
 * I don't find it really noteworthy, because not backed up by any concrete example ... --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Public figure
How does the 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
Is Mounir Majidi's date of birth still an issue? --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's never been for me... The french wikipedia page says 19th january (fr:Mounir_Majidi), but a lot of sources say January 10th, so I guess we can go for 10th. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template Mohammed VI
Does the template Mohammed VI belong at the end of the article? Please cite appropriate 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
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:Carmel, Har Hebron
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 is about Carmel, Har Hebron a Jewish settlement in the West Bank. A user have placed there two quotes that mention Carmel but are obviously about the nearby Palestinian village umm al-Kheir, Hebron.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We had some discussion on the talk page but only editors who participated were pro-Palestinian who see this as an outlet to push awareness of Palestinian hardness (I'm being gentle). I have been blocked for 1RR as it part of I/P conflict.

How do you think we can help?

Someone objective with fresh eyes can judge whether those quotes are WP:relevant to Carmel page or can they be move to Umm al-Kheir new page.

Summary of dispute by Nishidani
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Huldra
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Carmel, Har Hebron discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Malik-Shah I
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
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Malik-Shah I discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Sexism
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 sexism page under the section "objectification" the opening sentence is "objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object". this violates the NPOV policy by stating a pov as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. the statement has a citation to a reliable source which contains the same sentence verbatim however the title of the article in the citation is "objectification in feminist theory" so it is only meant to express the pov of feminism. but on the Wikipedia page this pov is being represented as fact even though the article only makes this assertion but has no objective data to back it up so doesn't directly support stating it as a fact. according to the rules of Wikipedia, POV statements should be attributed to the author or group endorsing them in the text. so with that in mind I suggest either striking "usually woman" part, or rephrasing the sentence so it does not come across as an objective fact (as currently it is not verifiable as a fact), or we could even rename the subsection "objectification in feminist theory" since that is what that article actually covers anyway. the article in the citation (far from having objective data on the matter) actually goes on to admit that objectification itself is difficult if even possible to define in a universal sense. so representing that opening phrase as an absolute fact and w/o in-text attribution to feminism it is absolutely an unverifiable statement.

at any rate the overwhelming consensus is against me on the talk page but I feel the wiki guidelines are not being adhered to. some input from impartial sources would be great, as I am concerned about the bias of the other editors affecting their judgment.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

repeated discussion which admittedly has not been productive at all. but I can only articulate something so many ways before people get annoyed. never the less there is a neutrality issue there.

How do you think we can help?

need outside impartial editors to review the dispute. all the text should still be under the talk page and I can rejoin the discussion if needed.

Summary of dispute by everyone else on the talk page
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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