Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 237

International Churches of Christ
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

JamieBrown2011 has a history of deleting other peoples' comments and tries to control the content of the International Churches of Christ article. He refuses to let people include relevant factual information on the International Churches of Christ. This user will immediately complain and delete other peoples' comments and article corrections. He is acting as a dictator over this page. Do a simple Google search on "The International Churches of Christ" and "cult" and dozens of articles come up on the ICOC being a cult. Yet, none of this information is included in the Wikipedia International Churches of Christ article in a criticism section. The page is therefore not encyclopedic in quality and the information contained may or may not be correct.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamieBrown2011

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow a criticism section in the Wikipedia International Churches of Christ section and keep JamieBrown2011 from controlling what information can go into the ICOC article.

Summary of dispute by JamieBrown2011
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

User talk:JamieBrown2011
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User:Coachbricewilliams28 is always pushing his own agendas on the Kip Mckean page and the International Churches of Christ page. User:Coachbricewilliams28 is a current member of the International Christian Churches and is a confirmed Kip Mckean follower. He is most likely one of Kip Mckean's paid leaders. His agenda and his only agenda is to promote Kip Mckean and the ICC. He is not interested in making Wikipedia encyclopedic. He is interested in advertising Kip Mckean.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamieBrown2011

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow a criticism section on the International Churches of Christ page so the truth can be told. JamieBrown2011 and Coachbricewilliams28 both keep reverting edits and blocking others from adding factual information or criticisms to the ICOC page.

Summary of dispute by User:Coachbricewilliams28
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:JamieBrown2011 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

2023 Manipur Violence
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

It concerns the line "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19,[50] by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state." I believe I have brought enough materials to justify changing these lines, but the users have ignored it.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

, 

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Probably would be nice if the changes I suggested in [Talk:2023_Manipur_violence#Changing_Manipur's_history_and_boundary?] were open to discussion.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

2023 Manipur Violence discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Maske: Thaery
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

As in my last DRN, this concerns the plot summary. I felt the summary was overlong (barely under 700 words for a book w/ notability barely established) and written in a "breathless, exciting" fashion which was not properly encyclopedic. I shortened it drastically and was reverted twice by the other editor. The other editor insisted the extensive context and detail were necessary to understand the plot and that the tone was not unduly "fanboyish." We do not see eye to eye and I do not feel further talk page discussion will be fruitful.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maske:_Thaery

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maske%3A_Thaery&diff=1171815810&oldid=1171773870

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maske%3A_Thaery&diff=1171731850&oldid=1171725101

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please consult the editors' respective versions of the summary (diffs provided above) and advise which summary, if either, is more appropriate per WP policy.

Summary of dispute by Clarityfiend
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Science fiction usually requires context, as the author has frequently created an alien environment or society. And Jack Vance is particularly noted for doing just that. JACU has so stripped their version of the synopsis of it you can barely tell it's even science fiction. It only surfaces once, in the sentence "He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht." Other than that (and the villain being transformed into a tree, which could just as easily be fantasy), it could be a spy novel set on Earth. As I stated before, it's like 2001: A Space Odyssey being described as: A five-man ship's crew goes on long voyage. An equipment malfunction results in the deaths of all but one. The sole survivor undergoes a transformative experience. It's just as context-free and just as uninformative. As for the allegation that it is "written in a 'breathless, exciting' fashion", where? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
Please read the ground rules. Please state whether you are willing to engage in moderated discussion subject to the rules. If so, we will begin moderated discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. You have already tried that, and it was lengthy and inconclusive.

I see that one issue is the plot summary. One editor thought that it was too long, and shortened it. The other editor thought that the shortened version was too short, and restored the long version. Are there any other issues besides the plot summary? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
There was a previous notability issue, where I had redirected the article due to its being an unsourced "book report" article, i.e. just a lengthy plot recap and character list. That issue has since been resolved, as Clarityfiend has added the required two reviews to satisfy the notability requirement. The remaining present issue concerns the length and tone of the plot summary. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That's the only issue so far. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
It appears that the only issue is the plot summary. Since there has been some editing of the plot summary, I will ask each editor to provide their preferred version of the plot summary. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the section for the purpose, preferably to try to compromise on the plot summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
Proposed Summary by JACU

Jubal Droad goes on "Yallow," a rite of passage into adulthood, traditionally spent doing public works. As part of his Yallow, Droad spends several weeks repairing a trail. One day, the arrogant noble Rampus Ymph ignores Jubal's warning to not use the still unfinished trail, causing it to collapse and seriously injure Droad.

When Jubal recovers, he arrives in the city of Wysrod for the examination of Ramus Ymph for the high office of Servant. Jubal recognizes his nemesis. He informs Nai the Hever, the senior Servant, of Ramus's illegal activities. This results in Ramus being rejected.

Nai the Hever offers Jubal a seemingly lowly position as Sanitary Inspector in unit D3. Jubal reluctantly accepts and learns that D3 is actually the intelligence service. He is now a secret agent in training. Jubal's first assignment is to discover what Ramus is plotting. He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht. Back on Maske, Cadmus off-Droad, Jubal's illegitimate brother, murders Trewe, head of the clan, asserting that he had been robbed of his rightful place. The clan gathers and brings Cadmus down. However, Cadmus's masked chief accomplice escapes and Jubal is certain that it is Ramus. Ramus sails across the ocean to meet with the Waels, a people known for their spiritual connection to trees. Jubal takes Ramus' fiance, Mieltrude, into custody and sets off in pursuit. During the voyage, Mieltrude informs Jubal that her engagement to Ramus was a subterfuge to aid her father's investigation of Ramus.

Jubal finds Ramus negotiating with the Waels for the use of part of their land for much-needed food and other resources. Jubal, disguised as a Wael, gets him to admit that he plans to construct tourist resorts on the land. The Waels reject his proposal. They insist that Shrack and Jubal take him away. When they reach Wysrod, Ramus transforms into a tree. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed summary by Clarityfield

It's what is currently in the article (598 words):

A religious group seized part of the isolated planet Maske from earlier colonists and named it Thaery. One dissident faction was driven off and became the Waels of Wellas. Another was exiled and became the Glints. The Glints became notorious bandits, but were eventually subjugated. However, they are still looked down upon as coarse and belligerent. Some Glints became "Sea Nationals", claimed sovereignty over the ocean. To maintain their religious purity, travel to other worlds was banned.

Jubal Droad, a young Glint man, goes on Yallow, a rite of passage into adulthood, traditionally spent wandering and doing public works. He spends several weeks repairing a trail. One day, a man leading a group of soldiers ignores Jubal's urgent warning not to use the unfinished trail. He and his men cause it to collapse and seriously injure Jubal.

When he recovers, his uncle Vaidro gives him a letter of introduction to Nai the Hever, one of the most powerful men of Thaery. He arrives in the city of Wysrod and encounters Nai's elegant adult daughter Mieltrude and her beautiful friend Sune Mircea. He accompanies them to the examination of Ramus Ymph for the high office of Servant. Jubal recognizes his nemesis. He informs Nai the Hever, the senior Servant, of his investigation of Ramus's activities: he secretly and illegally went off-world. This results in Ramus being rejected.

Nai the Hever offers Jubal a seemingly lowly position as Sanitary Inspector in unit D3. Jubal reluctantly accepts and learns that D3 is actually the intelligence service. He is now a secret agent in training. Nai the Hever is D3's head, and Vaidro had been a valued agent.

Ramus has Mieltrude, his fiancée, sign a warrant to subject Jubal to physical punishment. Jubal escapes with the assistance of Shrack, a Sea National ship captain, and procures a warrant against Mieltrude. Nai the Hever persuades him to not serve it.

Jubal's first assignment is to discover what Ramus is plotting. He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht.

Back on Maske, Cadmus off-Droad, Jubal's illegitimate brother, murders Trewe, head of the clan, asserting that he had been robbed of his rightful place. The clan gathers and brings Cadmus down after fierce fighting. However, Cadmus's masked chief accomplice escapes; Jubal is certain that it is Ramus. Without proof, however, Nai the Hever refuses to antagonize the powerful Ymph clan. In fact, Jubal has become an embarrassment to him.

Ramus sails across the ocean to meet with the Waels, a peculiar people living in a barren land who have developed a deep spiritual connection with trees. Jubal takes Mieltrude into custody and sets off in pursuit. During the voyage, their mutual disdain begins to weaken. Mieltrude informs Jubal that her engagement to Ramus was a subterfuge to aid her father's investigation of Ramus. Ramus's mistress, Sune, had forged Mieltrude's signature to the warrant.

Jubal finds Ramus negotiating with the Waels for the use of part of their land for much-needed food and other resources. Jubal, disguised as a Wael, gets him to admit that he plans to construct tourist resorts on the land. (Ramus tried to lease Droad land for the same purpose.) The Waels reject his proposal. They do something to Ramus which leaves him mute and subdued, and insist that Shrack and Jubal take him away. During the return voyage, Ramus sprouts bark and leaves. When they reach Wysrod, Ramus runs off the ship, plants his feet in the soil, raises his arms, and essentially transforms into a tree.

Second statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
Two versions of the plot summary have been written. The one by Clarityfiend is longer. Do you want me to offer an opinion, or do you want me to remain neutral? I will only offer an opinion if both editors want an opinion. If I do offer an opinion, the choices will then be to accept it, or to ask the community to resolve the issue by RFC. If you want me to remain neutral, then I encourage you to engage in back-and-forth discussion to try to compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in hearing your opinion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I too would be interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, but what happens if the other editor doesn't respond timely? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
One editor has agreed to having me offer a Third Opinion. The other has not. I do not intend to offer an opinion unless both editors agree, because then if one editor does not accept my opinion, I will not be able to be neutral. If the other editor does not respond, or if they do respond but do not want me to provide an opinion, the next step will be a Request for Comments, which will let the community decide. I may express my opinion then, but only as one voice among others. If User:Clarityfiend does not either agree to have me offer an opinion or raise other issues, I will formulate a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
The draft RFC is available for your review at Talk:Maske: Thaery/RFC on Plot Summary. If there are no further questions, I will activate the draft RFC and it will run for thirty days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon There's a misdirected link somewhere. The link to the RfC doesn't appear on the talk page for the article. There's also some stray code at the top of the RfC. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement 4A by moderator (Maske Thaery)
Yes. That's on purpose. The RFC is a draft, and is on a temporary subpage. There is no link on the article talk page because I will copy the RFC to the article talk page and activate the stray code when it is time to begin the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
The RFC is currently running. Please make your statement in the Survey. You may discuss in the Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Maske Thaery)
Responding to your comment on the talk page, the backstory is unnecessary to understand the immediate events of the plot. It's a big chunk of fat that could be cut and nothing would be lost except about 75 or so words. If you find it necessary for the reader of this summary to know that off-world travel is prohibited, simply say, "Off-world travel is prohibited" and leave it at that. Boring? Dull? Flat? Yes, but fully encyclopedic. Using a paragraph of backstory to explain this simple fact betrays a certain sentimental attachment to the material. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Being encyclopedic doesn't require one to be boring and dull. As I've stated before, a distinctive hallmark of Jack Vance is to create odd, exotic societies, e.g. The Dying Earth setting, "The Moon Moth", etc. To strip that out of one of his stories is to squeeze all the juice out of an orange, leaving a husk.
 * JACU seems to have a strong, misguided preference for brevity. Of my joking "synopsis" of 2001: A Space Odyssey (above), they have stated on the talk page of Maske: Thaery, "By your standards, yes, I probably would shred the F out of that Asimov book [sic] because summaries are by their very nature incomplete and should not recreate the emotional experience of reading the story." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would refer you to WP:PLOTSUM, where you will find descriptors such as "brief," "concise," "general overview" and several cautions against attempting to recreate the experience of reading the book. My bias towards brevity is more in keeping with the letter and spirit of WP than your bias towards capturing the spirit of the book. I could hardly care less about the book. I care about providing a summary which falls within WP policy, nothing more.
 * And because you insist on harping on the issue, I'm well aware that 2001 is not Asimov. My comment was referring to The Gods Themselves, which you also brought up on the Talk page. I stand by my earlier comment. I would have no problem shredding any plot summary which went into excessive detail or ran too long for comfort. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per PLOTSUM, "The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens". IMO, your version falls far short of this. You don't even explain what Maske and Thaery are. Related to this omission, as I've stated before, there's no clue that the primary setting is not Earth. It's also inaccurate: Ramus doesn't transform into a tree when they get home. The process occurs during the voyage and only culminates when they reach their destination. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an RfC at the talk page of the article, so I guess it's up to the hivemind at this point. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sengol
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


 * There was an edit war on this page, discussed in ANEW. See
 * I was asked to seek dispute resolution first, such as RfC. According the RfC guidelines, I was informed to attempt dispute resolution through other means.
 * Main content dispute is the reversal of many edits over a month, because one user objected to a few edits made a month ago. Detailed discussion here:
 * Facts:


 * The article was generally stable till 2nd of September.
 * User:TrangaBellam wants to revert the article to version from 2nd of August, with some additions.
 * They want to blanket undo around 70 edits by multiple editors, including myself over a month, to this version.
 * They referred to some changes they did not like on the talk page
 * Most of these edits they dispute were done in early August (from August 4th onwards) before many other edits that have been reverted (inlcuding mine made from August 13).
 * I happy to discuss and incorporate some of TB's edits to the page, but I disagree with undoing all the edits that happened since their preferred version.
 * This user justifies their revert on the basis they have more exeperience. See:
 * They claim, I believe wrongly, mine and other's edits are POV pushing (see ). I beleive their preferred version has many problems, which were corrected.
 * I would like an independent review of this content dispute.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Sengol User_talk:TrangaBellam 

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Two editors (me and User:Anirudhgiri) have so far objected to the blanket revert of this article to a much older version. TB does not value our opinions because we are not 'longstanding' editors. I would like to ask for opinions on the following:


 * 1. Is it justified to revert many edits because of alleged problems with older few?
 * 2. Is the substance of the TB's reverts valid. I have discussed the substance of their revert in detail here:

Summary of dispute by TrangaBellam
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Anirudhgiri is not a 30/500 editor; I won't participate in the DRN. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Anirudhgiri
I agree with the overview given by User:Jagmanst. Unilateraly undoing the work of several others because you would have done it differently is very elitist. I suggest we either:

1) Leave the page as-is

2) Incorporate some of TrangaBellam's edits wherever appropriate

3) Delete the article altogether because it is of an object of very little importance that made the news cycle for a few days before disappearing into obscurity once again. The title of the article, "Sengol", is problematic too because Sengol in Tamil means "Scepter" and the article seems to be talking about one very specific scepter. That scepter, along with others, is already mentioned in Sceptre in great detail so I don't see why this article is even needed. This is like writing an entire article for that one podium that was stolen during the Janurary 6th riot because it gained some news coverage, and then naming that article just "Podium".

- Anirudhgiri (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Dominic Ng
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

I am requesting views from other editors on the biography of Dominic Ng, a banker. There is multiple deletion and reverting of the following sentence in the intro paragraph of the biography: "In 2015, Ng served as an overseas representative to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Beijing."

I was one of the deleters but do not understand the reason for the reverting. I have asked the question on talk pages but without answer so I am seeking to escalate and use the dispute resolution protocols to seek other comment on whether this should be deleted or on whether it should be included, and if so why.

The suggestion to delete the sentence is that it does not seem to conform to Wikipedia's guidance on lead Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead now does not stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's subject with a questionable NPOV.

Attendance at a meeting of this organization in Beijing does not seem noteworthy in a biography at all unless there is a reason for its prominence. Members of Committee 100 have as part of their founding mission sought to foster better relations and pursuit of mutual interests and dialogue with China and this was done from the start of the group with the encouragement of Henry Kissinger who was looking for ways to build ties with China and show off successful US person who are ethnic Chinese. Giving prominence to attendance at meetings in China, and not noting similar meetings in Taiwan or with US political leaders, seems almost in today's atmosphere almost be an aspersion on the loyalty of US citizens. It is indeed ironic that acting in a way to further US foreign policy interests would be deemed relevant in a bio and presented in a way to imply the opposite. Sentences like this are perhaps fair game as part of political commentary or debate, but do seem appropriate for Wikipedia.

I appreciate everyone's time and comments.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Dominic Ng Amigao Talk: Dominic Ng Biography

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Stop the delete / revert cycle and provide a more experienced opinion.

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

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

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

Dominic Ng discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors by placing notices on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - all parties notified. NotAGenious (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Nakedness and colonialism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is entirely about the placement of an "Essay-like" template. The issue was discussed, and I thought resolved, in May 2023, but has been added again, with the suggestion that dispute resolution is necessary.
 * Note: I omitted a user from my initial posting here because, although placing (and re-placing) the tag, Onel5969 did not give any reason or participate in the talk page discussions.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Nakedness_and_colonialism Talk:Nakedness_and_colonialism

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There needs to be an impartial opinion on the appropriateness of the description of the article as essay-like. It is written with the support of academic citations that use the same language.

Summary of dispute by HTGS
Three editors (Onel5969, myself and VeryRarelyStable) have independently assessed the page (Nakedness and colonialism) as being of inappropriate tone for an encyclopaedia, and have tagged it with Essay-like. The problematic behaviour is best summarised as a slow and infrequent back and forth of someone adding the tag, and WriterArtistDC removing it shortly after. Discussion has taken place at #Personal essay/OR tag ? and #Removal of maintenance tag, with general agreement between our three parties that the article is “essay-like”, but WriterArtistDC has continued to remove the tag, citing talk page discussion in edit summaries. I recently added the tag back, with the strong advice not to remove it without consensus, but I added mention of WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION as an option for Writer, so here we are.

Personally I feel that other tags could be swapped out for the note of “essay-like” (perhaps POV would fit too), but the page has major issues for an encyclopaedia article. The content of the article to largely reflect the opinions of the Masquelier source uncritically, but the topic is very likely of encyclopaedic value. (I am not a subject matter expert, so I can’t assess whether any POV, or synthesis has been introduced, but given the problem of tone, it seems plausible.) WriterArtistDC appears to disagree with the premise of the critique, and has shown no inclination to change in the direction suggested, so perhaps the page should be moved to draft if major edits from other editors are unlikely in the short term. — HTGS (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Nakedness)
This appears to be a tagging dispute, and tagging disputes are essentially stupid, because, if the tag is found to be appropriate, the effort spent in deciding that the tag was correct would have been better spent in fixing the article. So fix it is a shortcut to Be bold and WP:SOTAGIT is a red link. Either the article should be fixed, or the article does not need fixing. However, two editors have made opening statements, so it is time to decide how to resolve this dispute. The tag should stay on the article until there is some resolution.

Read DRN Rule A. The editors should follow it while we are discussing how to resolve this dispute.

The simplest resolution will be for the filing party to agree that there is a local consensus to leave the tag on the article. This is probably not likely, but it would be a resolution.

Since the essay-like template and other templates that have been proposed in its place all are about neutrality, the noticeboard that is probably most appropriate for this dispute is the neutral point of view noticeboard. The editors who think that the article reads like an essay or has tone problems may ask for volunteer assistance at the neutral point of view noticeboard. While at NPOVN, it will be a good idea to follow the rules that I have prescribed.

If the editors who have tagged the article have specific changes to propose to the article, please identify them, and in that case we will discuss them here.

Do you want to agree to leave the tag on the article? Do you have specific changes that you want to propose? Do you want to discuss a reworking of the article at NPOVN? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, however I don't enter into discussions with uncivil editors who cast personal attacks (obviously, not you).  Onel 5969  TT me 20:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Opening statement by WriterArtistDC
My removal of the maintenance tag has been based upon Help:Maintenance template removal item #3: If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error.

Onel5969 placed both Essay and OR tags first (April 4th) but never participated in any discussion, ignoring my pings, then self-reverted the next day. Afterward I found that the tags were two of many placed on the same night, aka wp:tag bombing. The Essay tag reappeared April 11, and I removed it as disruptive editing based upon the prior indecent.

The initial statement by HTGS weeks later consisted of asserting that the article had a serious problem due to the tone of the lead, and platitudes about his willingness to help improve it but not having the free time to do so. The next day I responded: "The current "tone" of the article reflects the language of the sources I cite. If this has been done with veracity, how could it be otherwise?" and removed the tag.

When it reappeared, I did cite Masquelier as the source for the overall definition of the topic, but she is far from the only source, the article having 72 citations from 68 works. I do have a background in the social sciences, and consider myself to be a subject-area expert, and able to understand and correctly cite these works, t̶h̶u̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ i̶s̶ n̶o̶ N̶P̶O̶V̶ i̶s̶s̶u̶e̶, but have always appreciated open collaboration to improve the text. If a tag is placed to indicate the need for such discussion, it should be accompanied by a talk page entry to begin that discussion.

The only significant interaction has been with VeryRarelyStable, with whom I have collaborated on a number of occasions. It became clear that for him, the problem of tone was "value-laden statements" that do not belong in an encyclopedia. The topic of the article is a form of racism as defined in the humanities and social sciences, whose expertise is the documentation of human behavior and value judgements. Am I supposed to second-guess these sources, journal articles and books by notable professors with PhDs from major universities?

For me, "item #3" cited at the beginning means that a maintenance tag is also article content that must have some justification, not added casually, placing the burden of proof on other editors to disprove. Having had no further communication with VeryRarelyStable, I assume that he was satisfied with my response to his concerns. This dispute reduces to being one between two editors, not an individual versus the consensus of three. If it is a content dispute, I have not been given evidence of anything to fix. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Nakedness)
I am asking each editor to make a concise statement as to what they want changed in or about the article. If you want to tag the article, explain what in the article should be changed to remove the tag. If you want to tag the article, explain what in the article should be changed to remove the tag. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not tell me what other editors did or did not do, only what you want to do about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC
In the absence of discussion, I have nothing to add beyond my opening statement. I continue to see this as a dispute between two editors, and posted here to get a third opinion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Slight revision made to my opening statement.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by possible moderator (Nakedness)
It isn't entirely clear what the filing editor is looking for. WriterArtistDC says that they consider this to be a dispute between two editors, and that they posted to get a third opinion. They listed three editors in filing this request. Who is the dispute with? Did they list the other editors to get an opinion from them? This is not the Third Opinion noticeboard. What is WriterArtistDC requesting a third opinion about? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Nakedness)
In spite of many years of editing, I have almost no experience with formal disputes, so I apologize if my postings have been incorrect or confusing. I thought that what I want is clear, that either the essay tag be removed, or that those that placed it enter into a meaningful discussion regarding the specific content they think warrants the tag. The tag implies OR, which is concrete, but there is nothing I can do about "tone". I write in the language of a social scientist writing about racism, it is fact-based but not value-free. It is much the same as the main article on Racism.

I listed two editors for this noticeboard (HTGS and VeryRarelyStable) because I thought that was part of the required format. I did not include Onel5969, who was added by HTGS, because Onel5969 had not been a participant in the original talk page exchanges in May. VeryRarelyStable did give me a specific example of what he considered "unencyclopedic" language, and I responded with exact language from a cited source that supports what I wrote. There being no further posting about the article content at that time, I assumed the matter was closed, and removed the tag again. When the tag reappeared this month, I should have posted it here as a new dispute with HTGS alone, only pointing to the prior exchanges for context. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (My internet went out in a storm before I could complete this last night, including moving it to the proper section.)
 * As I have said, I posted here only because of the suggestion by HTGS. Whether it is called dispute resolution or third opinion, I would like another perspective. In an opening summary, HGTS characterized the situation as my removing the tag without addressing the problems with the article, but only cited the tag placement by three editors as indication that any problem exists. Before removing the tag in May, I requested justifications and got three different responses: silence, more vague claims regarding "tone", and a substantial discussion. I could only address the last, which I did. Yet the tag has reappeared months later, again without discussion of the content, only an admonition that tags cannot be removed without dispute resolution, so here we are.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Health issues and work have combined to give me very little time for in-depth Wikipedia discussions recently, for which I apologize. And now I'm going to have to drop in and drop out again mainly to let you know that I have unaddressed concerns in this matter.
 * I'm going to very briefly respond to the point you've made about finding academic sources with the same kind of language: Not all academic works are encyclopaedic. Academic works include polemics, arguments, and essays written to advance a point of view or recommend a particular course of action. That might be entirely appropriate in their context, but that doesn't make it appropriate for Wikipedia.
 * If you can't see how the article is clearly written to advance a particular point of view, I'm afraid I don't currently have the time I would need to perform the analysis necessary to explain it. But I will say that part of the difficulty is that I can't understand how someone couldn't see it. It's not some esoteric hidden detail tucked away into a sentence somewhere, it's the entire thrust of the article.
 * A further difficulty in my case, of course, is that I fundamentally agree with the point of view the article is written to advance, and it takes an extra layer of nuance to criticize the fact that it is written to advance a point of view without inadvertently appearing to attack that point of view itself.
 * I'm afraid I'm unlikely to be able to respond to this discussion in a timely fashion, for which I again apologize.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 12:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not very helpful to say that the "problems" with this article are obvious, and pointing this out by placing a tag with no justification. What is obvious to me is that this is a well researched article that presents a thesis within the well-substantiated theoretical constructs of race and racism which should be easily recognized as encyclopedic. While there are polemical works written about race, I cannot understand how the works I have cited can be viewed as such, or that the article presents a biased viewpoint as a result. The authors of these works, which include anthropologists, historians, and an Indigenous Australian lawyer, simply seek to include within mainstream theory the influence of nakedness along with skin color as one of the human characteristics used to define race, and detail the effect this has had in the tropical regions of the world. VeryRarelyStable contributed an example of this racism on April 7 with regard to the Maori of New Zealand: "The European colonists regarded nudity as an obscenity. The nakedness of Māori was cited, often in the phrase "naked savages", as a sign of their racial inferiority, which in turn was seen as casting into doubt the validity of the Treaty of Waitangi." (cited five sources)
 * Yet in May, he referred to a sentence in the article in his talk page comment: "From the 17th century, European explorers viewed the lack of clothing they encountered in Africa and Oceania as representative of a primitive state of nature, justifying their own superiority, even as they continued to admire the beauty of Greek statues." and indicated that the phrase "justifying their own superiority" was a value-laden interpretation, or "commentary", not allowed in WP. This reading flips around what is actually being said supported by the source cited, that value judgements are made by humans which have real consequences, defined as racism, and these biases come from deep cultural sources going back centuries.
 * Perhaps this entire dispute reveals a basic misunderstanding of the social sciences and what makes statements social realities, not personal opinions. - WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by possible moderator (Nakedness)
It now appears that User:WriterArtistDC says that this is primarily a dispute with User:HTGS. HGTS has not indicated whether they are ready to take part in moderated discussion. User:VeryRarelyStable says that they may not be able to respond to discussion in a timely fashion. We can conduct this discussion under DRN Rule C, which allows participants to take wikibreaks, provided that they keep the moderator informed of whether and when they will be active.

My understanding is that HGTS, VeryRarelyStable, and Onel5969 have issues with the tone of the article, and so have tagged the article, and that WriterArtistDC has untagged it. So I am asking HGTS and VeryRarelyStable to specify concisely and clearly what changes they think need to be made to the article. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the community, and to the moderator, who represents the community. If a concise statement can be made as to what should be done to improve the article, then we can proceed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by possible moderator (Nakedness)
I haven't seen any comments from any of the editors in nearly three days. Are the editors interested in moderated discussion under DRN Rule C, which is for slow-motion mediated discussion? Do any of the editors have any specific suggestions for changes to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Nakedness)

 * I started this, and want a decision regarding placement of maintenance tags without justification. "The problem is obvious" is not a justification. Since removing tags without justification is somehow not allowed (in contradiction of Hitchens's Razor) mediation is required.
 * Since 2006 I have always been open to discussions about improvements to articles. I have limited my comments to content, but there are also wp:behavioral guidelines which recognize when editor behavior impacts content.
 * "Follow the sources. For 99% of disputes about what an article should say or how it should say it, the answer is to say what reliable sources say, and to talk about the subject how reliable sources talk."

- HTGS on their talk page.


 * If I have not done this with regard to the sources I cited, I would welcome examples. Instead, I have an implication that the sources are not reliable, but opinions. If so, why? Is scholarship in the humanities and social sciences all "opinions", not facts? WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by possible moderator (Nakedness)
I haven't heard from User:HTGS or User:VeryRarelyStable in more than three days, and will ask them again whether they are ready for moderated discussion. If they are not ready, they are cautioned that drive-by tagging is disruptive. The purpose of tagging is to specify that an article needs improvement. An editor who is not willing to discuss the improvement of an article should not tag it. I started by saying that I was not willing to mediate a tagging dispute, because tagging disputes are stupid, because the purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. Drive-by tagging is disruptive. Are you ready to discuss improvements to the article, or are you ready to leave the article alone? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Allan R. Bomhard
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

Nature of dispute: I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia going back at least to 2004. Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. That is to say, for the better part of two decades, no one questioned my scholarly credentials or the content of my biographical entry. Then, for no apparent reason, my biographical entry recently got changed. The earlier version was a short, FACTUAL description. The current version, however, is no longer factual. Instead, it is a rather biased, unflattering OPINION. I have requested that the earlier version (with some minor updates) be RESTORED. For details, please see the lengthy “talk” section associated with the entry, which appears to have reached an impasse. Consequently, I am resorting to the dispute resolution process to resolve this issue. I feel that this is important, not only for restoring the factual content of my own biographical entry, but also for Wikipedia itself. If this can happen here, it can happen elsewhere and to others, thus affecting the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and raising the question as to whether Wikipedia can still be seen as a reliable, unbiased resource. Thank you. Allan R. Bomhard.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allan_R._Bomhard

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By removing the current version of my biographical entry and restoring the factual content.

Summary of dispute by Warrenmck
A few of us working on the article have, repeatedly, asked the user in question to provide citations for some of the content which was added. The "factual" version in question is wholly uncited, and I've tried making it quite clear that editors are willing to work with a connected contributor if they're willing to provide citations and suggestions for specific improvements (same diff as "repeatedly"). At no point has the editor in question provided citations, instead engaging in personal attacks, accusations of malfeasance, blanking the talk page (including my comments) and apparently opening a dispute resolution because we won't restore an uncited, criticism-free puff article.

Warrenmck (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * And just as a quick follow up for the submitter: the reason the article was changed after being static for so long was in the aftermath of a failed AfD (by me, to be clear) where multiple editors worked on bringing the article up more to Wikipedia’s standards. The iteration that is being objected to is not the work of a single editor, but rather a collaborative effort following a spotlight being shone on the article during the AfD process. Just because an article remains unchanged for a long time does not mean that’s the best version of the article possible. Warrenmck (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by David Eppstein
I have informed the poster on talk that his preferred version cannot be used because it makes unsourced claims in a BLP, in Talk:Allan R. Bomhard. I am not averse to including more biographical details if they can be adequately sourced. That is my sole recent contribution to the article. It is my understanding that Bomhard also wants the reliably-sourced criticism of his scholarship removed from the article, but I have not participated in recent discussions of that aspect of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, please spell my name correctly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Spelling of sometimes misspelled surname corrected by man with often misspelled surname. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Allan R. Bomhard)
I've notified all the parties of the discussion. From reading the talk page discussion, I assume that you've edited both without logging in (like you did when you posted this request) and logged in as User:Arbomhard. You're asked to confirm this, log on to your account and continue this discussion being logged in.

This case will be held under DRN Rule A, which editors are expected to follow. I've fixed both user links on the case heading. Best, NotAGenious (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @NotAGenious I've edited my own reply to conform more fully to Rule A, but I do think there's a slight sidebar here: I've had a full ANI post ready to go about this situation, but was waiting until I'm no longer on vacation to post it. I just want it to be clear that this has been written and ready to go since before this and I still intend to follow through with an ANI after this is concluded due to some specifics of the situation which a dispute resolution will not address but which I won't bring up here per Rule A unless I'm otherwise allowed to. Warrenmck (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Warrenmck: Thank you for letting me know. DRN is voluntary process. If you still decide to participate, you shouldn't post the ANI report until consensus has been reached here (or the case has been closed otherwise).
 * Due to the nature of the case & the evidence provided by Warren, could @Robert McClenon as an experienced volunteer to offer a second opinion on can this case be closed and moved to ANI? Thanks. NotAGenious (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Marked on hold per above. Still waiting for a more experienced mod to review. NotAGenious (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Marked on hold per above. Still waiting for a more experienced mod to review. NotAGenious (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by second volunteer (Allan R. Bomhard)
I will comment on what forum is most appropriate for the discussion of the dispute about the biography of a living person of Allan R. Bomhard. But first, I will ask Allan R. Bomhard whether there is a reason why they filed this request logged out, or was that simple negligence. If you have an account, and you do have an account, either log in, or use the option to stay logged in. Second, as noted, DRN is voluntary, but filing a complaint at WP:ANI is also voluntary. Once a complaint is filed, it belongs to the community. So, it is up to User:Warrenmck whether they file a complaint at WP:ANI. My usual preference is to use a content forum first, in the hope that it might solve the problem without the need for administrative action. Third, however, the best forum to discuss concerns about biographies of living persons, especially issues raised by the subjects of the biographies, is the biographies of living persons noticeboard. So my recommendation is that User:Arbomhard should file a case at the BLP noticeboard, and then any volunteer here can close this case as pending at BLPN. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize -- I should, indeed, have logged in, as I am now. Arbomhard (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As requested, I have re-posted this complaint to the BLP noticeboard. Thank you for your help. Arbomhard (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Closing here. Thanks everyone for your help NotAGenious (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The Masked_Singer_(American_season_10)
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

I was trying to remove demi lovato from the masked singer season 10 contestants photo. and then creating the special guest mask page then magitroopa removed it.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:6C55:4B00:75D:5D2F:9D75:DA4E:E640

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

i just want to create a special guest mask header and put demi lovato in the header rather than contestants photos.

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

The Masked_Singer_(American_season_10) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This filing has massively jumped the gun. The editor has made no effort to discuss on the talk page, but rather was edit warring until the page was protected. The link provided is to warnings on his talk page. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  21:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting
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 reliable source says that the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, Adam Lanza, posted on Wikipedia under the alias Kaynbred. Older reliable sources say that police were looking into the connection between said user and Lanza, but stop short of authoritatively stating he was the user. The issue had been discussed in the past on the article talk page, but no editor had previously provided a source that makes an authoritative claim that Lanza was Kaynbred on Wikipedia as I did. Since there was already a lack of consensus, I did not edit and instead brought this reliable source to the Talk page, laying out why I believed it was reliable and thus verifiable. Since, I have been involved in a long winded dispute with another user who, as I understand it, does not believe the source makes a verifiable claim that Lanza was Kaynbred. My understanding of this user's argument may be incorrect, and my attempts to clarify have not been fully illuminating for me. I requested a third opinion, and the user who responded to it agreed that the source was reliable. However, discussion seems to have stalled again.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Kaynbred_Wikipedia_Account:_Reliable_Source_Found

We have extensively discussed on the talk page. I also requested a third opinion.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As a newbie, I'm not entirely sure. I would like to build consensus, but I'm struggling to know where to go from here, as I don't feel much progress toward consensus has been made. I also would like more clarity regarding the other editor's position. More opinions on the matter would definitely be appreciated! Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * It was known in 2013 that Adam Lanza might have been User:Kaynbred. This was rejected by Wikipedia at the time because the edits were too old (2009-10) to have a log of the IP addresses used to make them. There are only twelve edits made by this user. The Hartford Courant has consistently stated/suggested that Lanza was Kaynbred, although this would be difficult to prove outright. In 2018 they obtained the spreadsheet that Lanza had compiled detailing his fascination with mass shootings. This shows some points of similarity with the Wikipedia edits, but the spreadsheet on its own does not show that Lanza was Kaynbred. The other problem is the wording of the 2018 story which says that "the posts appear to have started in 2009".This suggests that the Courant may have inferred that Kaynbred was Lanza without actually being able to prove it. WP:OUTING aside, I have never had a problem with saying that Lanza may have been Kaynbred, but there has never been knockout evidence in any of the stories that the Courant has published.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Sandy Hook)
Please read DRN Rule D, and indicate whether you are willing to comply with the rules provided. This is a contentious topic because it involves gun control. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I have two related questions at this point. First, is the main issue whether to say that Adam Lanza may have been User:Kaynbred? Second, exactly what do you (each editor) want to change in the article, or to leave alone that another editor wants to change? The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, so please specify what part of the article is in dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Sandy Hook)

 * This isn't about gun control, it has never been mentioned at all. The question is whether the article should say without any doubt that Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia in 2009-10 with the username Kaynbred. The longstanding position of Wikipedia is that it would be impossible to prove this. What the Hartford Courant seems to have done is to infer this because he had undoubtedly done similar things elsewhere. To save time arguing about this, I am going to go along with the suggestion on the talk page of the article, which is to say that "An article in the Hartford Courant stated Lanza edited Wikipedia with the user name Kaynbred."-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Sandy Hook)
Is there agreement then that the article will say that the Hartford Courant stated that Lanza edited Wikipedia as User:Kaynbred ? That seems like the right answer, attributing the linkage of pseudonym and of human identity to a reliable source, since that linkage will not be made in Wikivoice because it will not be made by Wikipedia Checkusers. Can we attribute that connection to the Hartford Courant, which is a reliable source?

If that is agreed to, I will close this case as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Sandy Hook)
Yes, sounds good to me. It looks like Ianmacm edited the article (thank you!) but didn't add that the username was Kaynbred. I am going to add that Lanza was user:Kaynbred (according to the Hartford Courant) and as long as my edit is not reverted, I'd consider the dispute resolved. Thank you. Happieryet (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Ianmacm has reverted my edit adding Lanza's reported username. I'll leave it up to them to explain their reasoning for doing so, but as of now I consider the case unresolved. Happieryet (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I had a think about adding this, but this edit wasn't a good idea because it linked to the user talk page. The article text should simply say Kaynbred.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, linking to the user talk page wasn't necessary. As long as you're okay with the edit in its current state, I consider the dispute resolved. Thanks! Happieryet (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

German influence on the Soviet space program
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

Since several weeks I'm trying to improve the article for a more balanced discussion of the German contributions for the Soviet rocketry development. There were reverts back and fourth and lastly I tried to find a starting point with a proposal for mutual agreement for a more balanced approach not denying controverse options of space historians (unanswered for more than a week). My last edit was reverted again although it was restricted to additional information and facts (together with many sources), improved structuring and several documented corrections. I clearly object the talk's statement that my edit "contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or is pushing a WP:Fringe theory that is not supported by credible articles."

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:German_influence_on_the_Soviet_space_program

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review my last change of the article (16:35, 2 September 2023) whether it was a fair approach of improving Wikipedia and whether it has any issue with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or WP:Fringe. Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard.

Summary of dispute by llenart626
When I created this article I was aware of an alternative viewpoint that overstated the German influence on the Soviet space programme, refer to this comment by DonPMitchell in 2009. Therefore I developed the Historical Analysis section of the article that contain both views, which adequately states the alternative viewpoint. The mainstream view is provided by Siddiqi’s Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 which is described in Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program” in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration.” Siddiiqi view, which is supported by many other references, states on page 84 of Siddiqi 2000:
 * “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”

I have summarised the above into the following statement in the Lead of the article:
 * “However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.”

Over the last 12 months I have been engaged in multiple discussions with SchmiAlf on the Talk page over his views of the German influence in the Soviet space programme, refer Joint work of Korolev and Gröttrup from 1945 to 1950 and Translation for German source. I have accepted a number of changes that SchmiAlf has made to the article, however his latest changes here, here, here and here have changed the mainstream view of Siddiqi and is basically pushing the alternative view. I have reverted these changes as they are based on his own research and conclusions, which contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Refer to Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program for details of the discussion. Note the number of times SchmilAlf’s reasoning is based on his own conclusions (ie reasons for Soviet’s visiting Gorodmlya) or combining various statements from Siddiqi, CIA reports and other sources to support his conclusions. In other words SchmiAlf is contravening both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in their arguments. In SchmiAlf‘s latest edit he is highlighting actions that the Germans undertook in 1948 and 1949 whilst ignoring the conclusion of Siddiqi and other sources; that the Soviets made very little use of this work and their influence was marginal, as summarised in the Historical Analysis section of the article. In addition, SchmiAlf’s latest edit is relying on a primary source, plus he has made changes to the Lead which do not reflect the underlying article, in contravention of WP:MOSLEAD. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

German influence on the Soviet space program discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Soviet space)
Please read DRN Rule D. We will be under this set of rules because the space programs in question were in Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic because discussions sometimes refight either World War Two or the Cold War. The German rockets were used in World War Two, and were adapted for Soviet use in the Cold War. Please indicate whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to the rules.

It isn't clear from the introductory statements whether the editors are requesting moderated discussion or a Third Opinion. If a Third Opinion is desired, I will put this case on hold while the Third Opinion is requested at that noticeboard, and then either close this case or open this case.

The filing editor also writes: Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard. Is this an article content dispute, a conduct dispute, or some of each? Sometimes if an article content dispute can be addressed, any related conduct issues may be set aside. It is a good idea to read the boomerang essay before filing at WP:AN or WP:ANI. If you aren't sure whether this is a conduct dispute, it is a good idea to try to resolve the content issue first.

The discussion at the article talk page is lengthy. If the editors want moderated discussion, we need to identify exactly what parts of the article are in dispute. Each editor is asked to make a concise statement of what material in the article you want changed, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants changed. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want those changes.

So: Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Do you want moderated discussion?
 * 2. Do you want a Third Opinion from the Third Opinion noticeboard?
 * 3. What specific changes do you want (or not want) in the article?

Zeroth statements by editors (Soviet space)
Hi Robert, can you note that most of SchmiAlf's latest edits have been removed due to copyright violation, "refer Deletion log 17:22  Diannaa talk contribs changed visibility of 2 revisions on page German influence on the Soviet space program: content hidden ‎(RD1: Violations of copyright policy: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/gorodomlya.html)"  Not sure how this changes this dispute resolution, will leave to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Ilenart626, I need to redo my last edit because it was completely removed. The use of quotation marks in some of Anatoly Zak's statements will not change the main reason of our dispute which I summarize as follows:
 * The Siddiqi-based statement "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” is a perspective of available information in 2000. It is not even a neutral paraphrasing of Siddiqi who talked about the "influence over the direction of the Soviet ballistic missile program" (which is a completely different aspect, not related to technical achievements). Since then, there is newer information: Matthias Uhl's comprehensive study of Soviet documents in Stalins V-2 (2001), Anatoly Zak's Russian Space Web (last updated in 2012), relevant CIA documents (RDP80-00810A001800090003-0, RDP80-00810A003300530005-2) released in 2010, and the Russian 70 Years of Swesda 1946-2016 document (2016) from Gorodomlya (quoted in the talk). Therefore the Siddiqi-based statement is biased in the Lead of the article and was deleted (not from the Historical Analysis section!, not even intended to do). The rest of my changes did not touch the controversary aspects at all, just improved the structure of the article and added several documented facts without presuming any interpretation. DonPMitchell's comment in 2009 has some good arguments and should be considered together with the Russian document Background to the creation of the RD-107/108.
 * My point of view is not that the Germans invented or built the R-2, the R-5 or R-7. However, there is some evidence that they contributed basic ideas and design concepts. As with many inventions, the final result cannot be reliably attributed to specific individuals or teams, because its implementation requires an on-going refinement of ideas and breakthroughs (which is most of the challenging work). Denoting my edits as WP:Fringe theory is downgrading my honest contribution which is based on more than five years of research in the history of Soviet rocketry, also including analysis of Helmut Gröttrup's inheritance which was handed over to the (public) archive of the Deutsches Museum (NL281) in 2017 (another unknown to Siddiqi). SchmiAlf (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Robert, in reply to your specific questions:
 * - agree to moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D
 * - Q 1 and 2 agree with moderated discussion
 * - Q 3 that the exist wording of the article is not changed.
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Soviet space program)
Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator, who represents the community. After we establish what the article content issues are, I will provide a space for back-and-forth discussion.

One editor has not stated that they agree to moderated discussion (which is voluntary). That editor also has not answered my question about what changes they want to make to the article. Reliable sources are essential in Wikipedia, but my usual opening question is not about the sources, but about the body of the article, which should reflect what the sources say, but it is the body of the article that a reader will read.. If you want to make multiple changes to the article, to reflect what their sources say, please be concise and list no more than three parts of the article that you want changed.

After we have identified what the proposed changes to the article are, then we will know better how to continue this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Soviet space program)
First statement by SchmiAlf — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmiAlf (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Q1: I agree to moderated discussion

Q2: I agree to third opinion

Q3: I want to apply the following improvements and changes:


 * Delete the last sentence "However, after 1947 [...] was marginal." in the lead (as justified by my arguments in the previous discussion). Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.
 * Improve the structure of the Work in the USSR section by sub-sections (as within my reverted/deleted edit of 16:35, 2 September 2023‎):
 * 1) until end of 1947 for launching V-2 and support of R-1;
 * 2) in 1948 and 1949 for design sketches of long range missiles;
 * 3) activities at OKB-456 (the current Glushko ... paragraph commingles independent OKB-456 and NII-88 activities);
 * 4) from 1950 to 1953 reduced cooperation on special topics;
 * 5) Return to Germany (already existing).
 * Add details based on Ustinov's report (1951) and other sources without prejudicing the level of German influence on later Soviet development.


 * Add a section under Historical analysis describing the reasons of a controversary view (as drafted in the talk of 11:53, 25 August 2023):
 * - fundamental interest of Soviets in German designs with visits in 1949;
 * - conical shape of G-4 and similarity to R-7 boosters;
 * - proposal of German engineers to use 4x 25 tons engines instead of 1x 100 tons engine;
 * - reduced thrust/weight ratio of 1.2 to 1.4 (instead of 2.0);
 * - system for simultaneous emptying of both tanks;
 * - quote Russian 70 Years of Swesda 1946-2016.--SchmiAlf (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

First statement by ilenart626

The section of the Lead that summarises the “Historical Analysis” section is detailed below. The section SchmiAlf wishes to delete is underlined:
 * The involvement of German scientists and engineers was an essential catalyst to early Soviet efforts. In 1945 and 1946 the use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.

SchmiAlf has stated that “Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.” I assume SchmiAlf is referring to the following:
 * However, due to a combination of reasons, including secrecy requirements due to the military nature of the work, political considerations and personal reasons from some key players, from 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists. They were effectively frozen out from ongoing research and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.

As per WP:MOSLEAD I believe the statement underlined above should remain in the Lead as I believe this wording, and the preceding section, appropriately summarises the conclusions in the “Historical Analysis” section.

SchmiAlf proposed other changes I cannot comment on as I am unsure of the specifics of these changes, particularly as: Ilenart626 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * changes 1-5 relate to SchmiAlf edit of 16:35, 2 September 2023‎, which has been deleted due to copyright violation;
 * uncertain where and what details of “Ustinov's report (1951)” SchmiAlf wants to add; and
 * SchmiAlf draft in the talk of 11:53, 25 August 2023 has over 1,000 words.


 * The copyright violation was in fact missing several quotation marks.
 * Details of "Ustinow's report (1951) include a structured overview of the German tasks in USSR from 1946 to 1951 with some more relevant details as compared to the current description in the article for 1948 to 1950. His final conclusion "The German specialists who have worked in the field of reactive technology have given considerable aid in restoring and reconstructing the German designs, especially in the first period. Their individual theoretical, design, and experimental work was used in designing Soviet models." supports the controversary view.
 * My lengthy argument (more than 1000 characters) was due to the complete deletion of my edit which I could otherwise have referred to. SchmiAlf (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by possible moderator (Soviet space program)
Schmialf has proposed three changes to the article:
 * 1) Delete the last sentence of the lede paragraph: "However … was marginal."
 * 2) Expand the "Work in the USSR" section.
 * 3) Expand the "Historical analysis" section by adding a section.

The main issue appears to be whether German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal or was significant. The second and third proposed points will discuss in more detail what the influence after 1947 was. So I am asking both editors whether the article content issue has to do with whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program. I am also asking what sources describe the post-1947 German influence, and whether those sources are considered reliable, and whether the coverage is considered significant. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, are there any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Second statement by ilenart626

I believe “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” is the key issue in this content dispute.

The main sources that describe the post-1947 German influence are Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005) Ley (1969), Russians Space Web, Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012). Siddiqi, in particular, on page 84 states the following:
 * “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”

The other sources support the above, for example:
 * Chertok - “…the Germans had little influence and the R-7 rocket that propelled the Sputnik 1 to orbit was "free of the "birthmarks" of German rocket technology"


 * Ley - “In reality, the Germans did not build anything for the Russians, did not “supervise" the firings, and did not introduce innovations”


 * Russian Space Web - “As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between…”


 * Mick & Neufeld - “As a gross generalization, one can say that the initial transfer of Third Reich knowledge, both in the eastern occupation zone and in the USSR, was a success, but afterwards the value of most of the German teams quickly diminished as a result of the Stalinist policy of isolation and secrecy, compounded by linguistic difficulties, differences in engineering cultures, rivalry and resentment from indigenous engineers and scientists, and the inefficiencies and disin- centives of the planned economy.”

I believe all these references are considered reliable, particularly Siddiqi (Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article describes Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration).

I believe the coverage is significant for all these references, particularly Siddiqi (appears he devotes about 50 pages of his 1,010 page book to German involvement, including a 5 page section called “The End of the Road for the Germans” pp 80-84).

I’m not sure if there are any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence, will leave it to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by SchmiAlf

The first key issue is “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” in the lead as it violates the neutral point of view. The second key issue is that additional information supporting the controversary view have been reverted several times.

With regard to the sources mentioned above I have the following comments:
 * Chertok (Russia 1996) is deemed mostly reliable, but he has major issues in neutral description of Soviet/German relationships. As an example he claims that Korolev had never been on Gorodomlya (p. 49) - in fact he was there in 1948 and 1949. His view is driven by the Soviet (and Stalin's) mania that all rocketry development was done by Soviet engineers only, a fatal dilemma which he addressed several times (pp. 46-49, 57-58, 65, 68-69). In addition, he claims that Korolev was unable to listen to German proposals. Gröttrup's and Magnus' retrospection is different, without any reservation from Korolev and his staff as long as the ideas and concepts supported his target and Ustinov's respect. Therefore his central statement that "R-7 had no German birthmarks" must be challenged: If R-5 had German birthmarks and R-7 was partially based on R-5 ...
 * Siddiqi (2000) is deemed mostly reliable, but his findings were never updated to later publications, such as secret CIA reports from 1952 to 1956 (released in 2010), Matthias Uhl's Stalins V-2 dissertation (2005), publications of Gröttrup (1958), Magnus (1993), Albring (1991) - all of them in German only. Also newer Russian documents are missing
 * Russian Space Web (last updated on 5 August 2012) is deemed reliable and neutral (and I can agree with Zak's statement: “As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between…”.)
 * Mick, Neufeld (2012) are deemed neutral (but less relevant in this context)
 * Ley (1969) may be right in some assumptions, but his limited view during the Cold War can't be taken as a serious argument.
 * Dmitry Ustinovs (1951) report is very valuable at it outline his detailed targets for the use of German scientists. It is a neutral view because he had to explain Lavrentiy Beria why so much money was spent for the German team (for sure, not for gardening etc.) and discuss when they might return to Germany under the risk of reporting Soviet progress of rocketry to Western secret services
 * Encyclopedia Astronautica is useful especially in technical matters (also supporting some of my controversary findings, but I do not want to restart the talk on that article).

ilenart's edit of Soviet space program on 4 July 2022 shows a strange approach. He claimed to move essential arguments into the new German influence on the Soviet space program (see diff and deleted them. But they never showed up in any version of his new article. So the new article disposed of some controversary arguments instead of challenging their content. In part, these arguments match with the content of my dispute. As a summary, IMHO the current version of this article is biased and does no apropriately reflect the controversary view.

I have restored a new version of my reverted and deleted edit as a sub-page, see here the difference to the currently published version. It does not yet include an update for the Historical analysis section. --SchmiAlf (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
Be concise. Long statements are often not needed, and sometimes do not clarify the issues. I will be more or less repeating my questions.

It appears that there is really one multi-part issue, which is whether the German influence on the Soviet space program was marginal after 1947, or whether the statement to that effect should be deleted, and replaced by specific statements as to what the post-1947 German influences were. Is it correct that is the main issue? Please restate whether you wish to leave the marginal after 1947 statement in place, or whether you wish to delete it.

Does the issue of German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 have to do with the reliability of sources? If so, please state which sources you are questioning the reliability of, and we can submit an inquiry to the reliable source noticeboard.

Please state concisely whether there was significant German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947, and what sources describe or dispute that influence. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Third statement by SchmiAlf

I wish to delete "the marginal after 1947 statement" in the lead as it is not plausible at all for what happend during 1948 and 1949.

My concerns about the reliability of the sources (Chertok; Siddiqi) addressed in my second statement are very specific and come up when comparing their conclusions with other sources which became accessible later. We must also consider the circumstances that Soviet (and later Russian) official statements kept German participation secret and denied it. But there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments, as follows:
 * Several high-ranking visits to Gorodomlya in 1949 (documented by Siddiqi & Zak, proving the fundamental interest of Soviets in German ideas and designs far beyond V-2);
 * Retaining most of the Germans in Gorodomlya until mid of 1952 and pay them high salaries even after most of the V-2 technology transfer had been completed by end of 1947 (the most plausible reason is that they knew too much about the advancements of Soviet rocketry);
 * Conical shape of G-2 and G-4 (documented by 1953 CIA interrogation (item 50) and the similarity to the R-7 boosters (documented by comparative drawing);
 * The use of pressure-stabilized balloon tanks based on thin-walled self-supporting structures (<2 mm) to reduce weight (documented by 1953 CIA interrogation (items 6a,10b,26-33), Uhl (p.177-178) and applied for R-7)
 * Optimized thrust/weight ratio of 1.2 to 1.4 (instead of 2.0) (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation (item 25) and applied for R-7's Sputnik shot with a value of 1.4);
 * System for simultaneous emptying of both tanks as described by Ustinov's 1948 task "fuel level sensor in the rocket’s tanks" (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation (item 25), Russian Tank emptying system and Chertok (p. 292, Vol 2);
 * Arrangement of the oxygen tank ahead of the fuel tank to improve the center of gravity position (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation report (item 21) and applied for R-5 and R-7).

The CIA documents provide details of German concepts and analysis long before data of Soviet and US missiles became publicly available. It is highly improbable that they got them from the Soviets who were eager to keep their secrets on their own.

IMHO the most neutral position is provided by Russian Space Web: "As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between: Germans did not design Sputnik or its rocket, however the ideas and concepts developed by Gröttrup’s team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and thus accelerated their efforts. 'The work of the captive German scientists and technicians served as a yardstick against which Soviet accomplishments could be measured, and the Soviets were capable of extracting those developments useful to their program and of discarding others which they had already surpassed,' concluded a US historian [Ernest Schwiebert]." --SchmiAlf (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by ilenart626

I wish to retain the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead.

I question the reliability of any source that uses the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. For the discussion about its reliability refer to 1 - the Talk page on the article about the website, 2 - this discussion on Valentin Glushko’s Talk page and 3 -this reference.

There was no significant influence on the Soviet space program by German specialists after 1947. The main sources that confirm this are:


 * Siddiqi 2000 on page 84 - “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”
 * Neufeld (2012) on page 58 “The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.”

I agree that the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead is the main issue. However, as SchmiAlf has now provided details of their proposed edits in their 2nd statement here, I can now advice that I disagree with many of these changes. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It would be very helpful for unblocking our dispute (taken aside the disputed lead statement) to outline the reasons in detail why you "disagree with many of my changes", not just as a general statement. SchmiAlf (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am replying to the Moderator ie “Be concise” and “ Is it correct that (marginal after 1947) is the main issue?” Also note that the Moderator has also stated “Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator, who represents the community.” Hence I have not made any comments on your statements. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
"Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion" means do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. However, I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion, which should be civil.

It appears that SchmiAlf wishes to delete the "marginal after 1947" statement, and to expand two sections describing later German influence. It appears that Ilenart626 disagrees, and wishes to retain the statement, and does not want the two sections added.

Ilenart626: Do you question the reliability of any of the sources provided by SchmiAlf? If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will refer the issue to the reliable source noticeboard. If there is a different reason for disagreeing, or a different issue, please state what the issue is.Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Fourth statement by SchmiAlf

Robert's statement is correct. For the section Work in the USSR of my proposed edit I'm willing to discuss plausible and well-founded objections by ilenart626. --SchmiAlf (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by ilenart626

As detailed in my third statement above, I question the reliability of SchmiAlf’s sources from the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. I agree with refering the website to the reliable source noticeboard.

The main reason I disagree with SchmiAlf’s changes is that they have failed to provide reliable sources that support “that German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. Note that I do not disagree that the German specialists carried out studies during 1947-50; the “Work in the USSR” section of the article already contains details of this work. However as Neufeld (2012) states on page 58 “…after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” In other words, these studies were ignored and the German specialists had little to no influence on the Soviet space program after 1947.

The only source that SchmiAlf has provided that supports his view is the statement provided by Schwiebert at the end of his third statement at Russian Space Web. However note that this statement is from Schwiebert’s “USAF's Ballistic Missiles - 1954-1964; A Concise History. Air Force & Space Digest” published in 1964. As SchmiAlf has already advised in his Second statement regarding a 1969 source - “Ley (1969) may be right in some assumptions, but his limited view during the Cold War can't be taken as a serious argument.” I agree with SchmiAlf that we should disregard sources from the cold war. My recommendation is to rely on sources after 1991 and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Glasnost that have accessed Soviet records, for example Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005), Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012).

None of the other sources that SchmiAlf has provided clearly states that “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. SchmiAlf’s Third statement lists 7 dot points that he describes as “…there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments…”. Not a single one of these points provides a source that clearly states “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. They consist of his own analysis and synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves, in other words, not complying with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

In contrast, the existing statement in the Lead - “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” is clearly supported by the sources, for example:
 * Siddiqi 2000 on page 84 - “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”
 * Neufeld (2012) on page 58 “The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.”

Hence I believe the existing statement in the lead “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” should remain. Ilenart626 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
Before I ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard for an opinion on the reliability of any of the sources, I need to ask whether the question is really about the reliability of the sources, or about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly. If the question is about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly, we should discuss that here.

So, please specify whether you are questioning the reliability of the sources listed at the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site, or whether you are questioning the interpretation of the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Fifth statement by ilenart626

I am questioning the reliability of information contained in the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site. Errors on the site have been identified as far back as 2006 but they have never been fixed. The site is no longer maintained and has never been peer reviewed, so these errors are never going to be fixed. Note that this space historian made the following comment in 2006:
 * "Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." - Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, (2006) pp. 484–485

I also note the following comments about the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica that was posted by another editor here in 2009 on Valentin Glushko’ Talk page, which is also relevant to this discussion:
 * “I urge some caution with regard to the biography on Encyclopedia Astronautica, because it toes the line of a particular nationist German historian who claims that all of Russian rocket inventions were made by captured Germans. There is no documentary evidence at all that Germans designed the KS-50, ED-140 or RD-105 engines or had anything to do with the R-7 packet rocket design.  This is just stated without proof in the articles and books by this historian and parroted on the astronautix.com site.  Russian documentation multiple eyewitness accounts all claim that the Germans worked on the R-1 project and were completely isolated from more advanced missile projects, for security reasons.  The Germans who worked in the Soviet Union were almost all debriefed by the CIA and some by von Braun.  Yet none of these claims about inventing later rocket and engine technology appeared until the 1990s, after technical details of those  missiles were made public by Russian sources.  I fear these conspiracy theories will be dragged into wikipedia, and we will never hear the end of it. I recommend looking at articles on Soviet rocket engines by the American engineer George Sutton, and articles and books by Asif Siddiqi.  For a scholarly treatment of the German work in USSR, look at Michael Uhl's book "Stalins V2" (in German).”

Ilenart626 (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by SchmiAlf

The reliability discussion on Encyclopedia Astronautica is a side aspect here only and not an elementary basis of my arguments (just a reference for technical concepts). With a similar argument, the work of Siddiqi, Mick, Neufeld (and many other authors) may be challenged if there is new relevant information since their publication date, no peers have fundamentally reviewed their findings and their work has not been updated accordingly.

I completely disagree that Siddiqi's and Neufeld's (based on Mick) statements can be summarized as ilenart626 does. He paraphrases Siddiqi (p. 84, see above) as "After 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal" (let me call it the 1947 proposition). One may even dispute whether Siddiqi's original term "influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program" is sufficiently considered herein. With mentioning Neufeld and Mick that they support the 1947 proposition, he clearly exceeds the tolerable zone of interpretation. Neufeld/Mick have stated: "After 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used". This statement significantly differs from ilenart626's 1947 proposition. My previous edits were mostly consistent with Mick when unterstanding it in such a way that 1949 was a transition period between major involvement and being frozen out (from 1950) (as is agreed by most space historians). The 1947 proposition is completely overused when referencing to Neufeld and Mick as he does in Wikipedia's Soviet rocketry and Soviet space program (here even in conjunction with Anatoly Zak whose Myth and Reality statement is clearly opposite. This approach is not compliant to WP:SYNTH.

We cannot expect that we may find official Soviet documents which clearly determine the German influence on Soviet rocketry. In spite of high efforts in investigating Soviet/Russian archives, Uhl and Przybilski could not find the "smoking gun" of such proofs, just several chains of evidence. This is because the Soviets (most likely) have destroyed all German drawings and calculations after translating them (or at least have hidden them in a still secret location), not even German documents of the V-2 were retrieved. The most relevant document is Ustinov's 1951 report to Beria (Uhl, p. 259-260).

As a second opportunity, we have the CIA interrogations of Germans returned from Gorodomlya in 1952 and 1953. The comprehensive 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation are the most comprehensive reports, the first is (at least partly) based on Konrad Toebe's, the second on Helmut Gröttrup's interrogation in January 1954 after he and his family had fled to West Germany in December 1953 (backed by personal documents in his inheritance). These detailed statements of contemporary witnesses who were deeply involved in the German efforts for the Soviet rocketry are not biased by intentions of propaganda or embellishment during the Cold War. As the reports were released by the CIA in 2010 only, they were not known or considered by any of ilenart626's favorite sources. As the isolation of the German team from Soviet achievements (only one-way information flow!) was predominant after 1947, these documents are the most reliable source in this dispute of the German influence on Soviet rocketry. By the way, only a small portion of 10 (?) German returnees was debriefed by the MI6 and CIA with Helmut Gröttrup as an "important defector" and the "best-informed Dragon Returnee" (see Paul Maddrell, Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany, 1945-1961, p. 87, 205-109, 221-227). This 2006 document includes comprehensive analysis of the German work in Gorodomlya based on MI6 and CIA knowledge. It is not a conspiracy theory or WP:FRINGE.

When leaving the USSR, the Germans had to sign a secrecy agreement with the KGB (Uhl, p. 205-207). Therefore public contemporary information is very rare in the West, none in the East. We find several private memoirs reporting on the Gorodomlya operations, among them Irmgard Gröttrup's Rocket Wife (1958), Kurt Magnus' Raketensklaven (1993), Werner Albring's Gorodomlia (1991), and Boris Chertok's Rocket and People (1995/2005). All of them provide additional insight into Gorodomlya's activities from a German or Soviet view and can be used for plausibility checks, but require cautious interpretation. --SchmiAlf (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
Please provide me with as much information as you can for the Reliable Source Noticeboard about any sources that you are questioning, including the Encyclopedia Astronautica, and any sources available from it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Sixth statement by ilenart626

Refer to my comments above in my fifth statement regarding reliability issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. Also note the following additional comments about Encyclopedia Astronautica's reliability on various Talk pages:


 * Talk:Martin Summerfield “ The Martin Summerfield biography referenced from astronautix.com contains a great deal of misinformation crediting Summerfield with developments first made by engineers at other companies.”


 * talk:Kvant-1 Highlights the Encyclopedia Astronautica still showing mass as 83,000kg. NASA gives the correct mass of 20,000kg


 * Note the comment here about Encyclopedia Astronautica being a WP:UGC site Talk:Apollo command and service module "sources" we should not be using at all, like Encyclopedia Astronautica, a WP:UGC site


 * Talk:Aerojet General X-8“…such as Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica, which I have foud clear errors.”

Ilenart626 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statement by SchmiAlf

The main dispute is about Asif Azam Siddiqi's monumental history Challenge to Apollo, a NASA publication in 2000, in chapter 3 "Stalin and the rocket", pp. 69-84. This section concludes by the statement (p. 84): "On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best." As there is significant other reliable information contradicting it, Siddiqi's work is questioned as unrealiable, at least on his conclusions on pp. 83-84, and the rating of German contributions from 1948 until 1950 where it is incomplete.

In itself, chapter 3 already includes several of his own statements weakening his final conclusion:


 * p. x (Preface): "Russian historians have never adequately addressed the use of German expertise in the immediate postwar period. They have generally minimized the German role as extremely peripheral. On the other side. the popular press in the West has had a tradition of dismissing early Soviet successes as merely an extension of German work."


 * p. 58: "On June 4, 1947, NII-88 Director Maj. General Gonor hosted another meeting to discuss the long-range goals of the German specialists affiliated with the institute. At the meeting, Gröttrup, the leading German rocketry specialist in the Soviet Union, proposed the development of a new missile designated the G-1 (later to be confusingly called the R-10) as a successor project to the R-1. Not surprisingly, there was as much resistance on the part of Soviet engineers to any German proposal that was competitive with their own plans. In this case, the G-1, with a range of 600 kilometers, had capabilities and design elements very similar to Korolev's R-2. The latter was particularly stubborn in his opposition to the G-1 plan."


 * p. 63: "Korolev and his engineers returned from Kapustin Yar to Kaliningrad in time to hear the revised report by the German engineers on their G-1 study. On December 18, 1948, the members of the Scientific-Technical Council of NII-88 gathered to make a final decision on the German proposal. [...] After a long and sometimes acrimonious session, punctuated for the first time by a discussion of the political implications of using German expertise, the council formally terminated the parallel approach of work on the R-2 and the G-1, which had been continuing for close to two years by then."


 * p. 72: "The three successes [i.e., launch of R-1, R-2, R-2E until September 1949] did, however, instill sufficient confidence in Soviet capabilities to eliminate any doubt about terminating work on the German G-1 concept, with which the R-2E shared many performance characteristics."


 * p. 81: "On April 4, 1949, Minister of Armaments Ustinov personally visited the Gorodomlya facility with a proposal to the Germans to design a missile that could carry a three-ton warhead a distance of 3,000 kilometers. The specifications were identical to those for the Soviet R-3 missile, and Ustinov's proposal was quite likely a means to augment the R-3 effort by absorbing as many technical innovations as possible from all sources. This new German missile project, called the G-4 (or R-14), reinvigorated the energies of Gröttrup's team, which was given only three months to complete a preliminary draft plan on the missile. Given the circumstances, what they came up with was no less than astounding. The G-4 was a single-stage, cone-shaped, twenty-five-meter-long vehicle with a single 100-ton-thrust engine."


 * p. 81: "On October 1, 1949, Ustinov sent NII-88 Director Maj. General Gonor, Chief Engineer Pobedonostsev, and Chief Designer Korolev to Gorodomlya to be briefed on the G-4 missile. It was a rare interaction between the latter and the Germans, and it was probably Korolev's last visit to the island. The Soviets returned to Kaliningrad with the product of the German team's work; the Germans themselves were given no explanation and heard little about the project ever again. Some minor redesign effort on the G-4 was continued until February 1950, but by that time, a formal decision [i.e., termination] on the R-3 had already been taken by NII-88, and presumably the Soviets saw little use in having the Germans continue with their parallel project."


 * p. 82: "Work on the G-4 and G-5 projects coincided with a marked decrease in work among the Germans. In April 1950, the Ministry of Armaments formally decided to terminate further work on long-range missiles at Branch No. I at Gorodomlya. Also, by order of the ministry, on March 29 of that year [1950], all access to classified materials was denied to the Germans. Despite the order, the Soviets continued to ask advice on technical matters well into 1951. [...] In early 1951, groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans at these excellent facilities. It was the last time that the Soviets would make active use of German expertise in the postwar years."


 * p. 83: "The almost eight years of involvement of the German scientists in the Soviet rocketry program clearly proved to be an essential catalyst to its further advancement. During the existence of the USSR, Soviet historians rarely, if ever, mentioned the use of German expertise in the postwar years, but the collaboration was real and extremely pivotal in furthering Soviet goals."


 * p. 83: "Western historians have debated much on the role of the "German factor" in the postwar development of ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union. The most common interpretation has been one very generous to the Germans - that is, that they had a significant influence over early Soviet developments. One author [James Harford], writing in 1995, argued:
 * For years Soviet space leaders put down the contribution that captured Germans and their V-2 technology made to the Soviet ballistic missile and space programs. 'Not significant,' they would say, 'we got mostly the technicians. The Americans got von Braun and his top team. We sent our Germans back after a few years.' That explanation is no longer the Party line. In fact, it is now acknowledged that German rocket technology was bedrock to the USSR, just as it was to the US."
 * [In the following paragraphs, Siddiqi does not provide a traceable explanation why he puts aside this statement for his own differing conclusions.]


 * p. 84: There is compelling reason to believe that the USSR might have floundered for years before moving ahead to such ambitious concepts as the R-3 had it not been for mastering the design and manufacturing technologies of the A-4 rocket.

In addition, for the period of 1948 to 1953 significant information is missing as several relevant documents were unknown to Siddiqi or released after 2000:


 * Matthias Uhl's Stalins V2 dissertation (2005) on the "Technology Transfer of German Missile Technology in the USSR and the Buildup of the Soviet Rocket Industry 1945 to 1959" with many details of research in Russian archives, pp. 132-216
 * The Soviet Minister of Armament Dmitry Ustinov with his 1951 report to Beria including a comprehensive overview of the German work in 1947 to 1950, with his conclusion:
 * "The German specialists who have worked in the field of reactive technology have given considerable aid in restoring and reconstructing the German designs, especially in the first period. Their individual theoretical, design, and experimental work was used in designing Soviet models."


 * Reports of CIA interrogations on returnees from Gorodomlya, such as 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation (released in 2010) which provide many details of technical concepts and calculations later found in Soviet missiles
 * Missing information of the German tasks in Valentin Glushko's OKB-456 for the development of rocket engines, e.g., as reported by Olaf Przybilski The Germans and the Development of Rocket Engines in the USSR (2002) and Paul Maddrell in "Spying on Science - Western Intelligence in Divided Germany" (pp. 225-227) (2006)

There are the following errors in Siddiqi's work:


 * p. 82: "The last remaining eight German scientists, including Grottrup, were given permission to leave the Soviet Union on November 22, 1953. Within a week, they were all gone, ending the seven-year existence of NII-88's Branch No. I.
 * [In fact, it was a group of 24 retained German scientists CIA report RDP80-00810A002000690002-2 (August 1953) who eventually returned in November 1953. See also RDP80-00810A000400020001-7 report of June 1952


 * p. 82-83: "Dr. Waldemar Wolf[f], one of the few who remained behind in the Soviet Union after 1953, lived in Moscow for many years before also returning to Germany. In his remaining years in the Soviet Union, he had no contact with the ballistic missile program."
 * [Wolff already returned to Germany in June 1952 as reported by Encyclopedia Astronautica and Stadtwiki Dresden


 * p. 83: "Compounding Korolev's personal resistance toward cooperation with the Germans was a much more imposing political imperative one that was grounded in xenophobia and distrust."
 * [This is an unsupported generalization of Boris Chertok's quote on p. 58 and does not take into account the Soviet-German contacts until 1951 with "groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans" (p. 82).]

With the above quotes, missing information and errors, Siddiqi's Challenge to Apollo is deemed incomplete and unreliable for the chapter 3, pp. 62-84, especially his conclusions on p. 84.

The dispute of the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica is of secondary relevance only as none of my essential arguments is founded on this database, which is used as a compendium for easier understanding and visualization of design concepts. --SchmiAlf (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
See comment at RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1175954925&oldid=1175953387

Each editor is asked to make a short additional statement at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Robert, was it meant to be here (as suggested below) or in the RSN? SchmiAlf (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Seventh statement by SchmiAlf

I completely agree with the statement: "I would think it marginally reliable, but that better sources are suggested. I doubt it should be used for controversial details that are in opposition to more academic, or more up to date works."

There are similar issues with any publication (incl. Siddiqi's work which was published in 2000) that it may be outdated and contain uncorrected errors. Without getting to (or understanding) the (original) roots of an information and its subjective (potentially biased) view any secondary analysis should be treated with caution and weighed by the plausibility and consistency with other sources. --SchmiAlf (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statement by ilenart626

Was a comment from only one editor, however in the context of this dispute I believes his remarks are relevant. However, considering the number of issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website identified in my fifth and sixth statements above (which are only a sample) I believe the reliability issues with this website are not just related to the dispute with the "German influence in the Soviet space programme" but affect all of Wikipedia. Therefore I would suggest that a WP:RFC be held to obtain more viewpoints and reach consensus on whether the site is:
 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

and the results be published on WP:RSP.

There are plenty of reliable sources out there that can be used to reference space history, why bother with one that is unreliable? Ilenart626 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Soviet space program)
Question to ilenart

Ilenart626, any suggestion for a revised neutral lead which is compatible to Zak, Neufeld and other sources?--SchmiAlf (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in replying, has been a busy week.


 * To revise the Lead the first issue is that as per MOS:INTRO “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” So any new items we add to the lead have to be significant and covered in the main body of the article.


 * Neufeld (2012) main contribution to the article (from page 58) is “ In the rocket sector, Stalin ordered that Soviet teams begin by copying the V-2...The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” This is pretty similar to the “essential catalyst” section in the lead, but it could be used.


 * I was also thinking that that the issue that Siddiqi 2000 flagged on page 84 “Such an argument conflates two clearly distinct issues: the use of recovered German technology and the use of the actual German scientists” could also be highligted better in the article and the lead.


 * An additional source that is not currently used in the article is Siddiqi (2009) “Germans in Russia: Cold War, Technology Transfer, and National Identity”. Note that in this essay Siddiqi uses recently accessible Russian archival sources in his analysis, including Dmitry Ustinov’s 1951 report. In this essay Siddiiqi delves into how and why German specialist were not used. This highlights further reasons as to why the Soviets ignored German expertise, including secrecy requirements, Zhdanovshchina and Korolev’s conviction as an enemy of the state. The following section of the essay highlight some of these issues.


 * ”Given Zhdanovshchina’s various dimensions, Korolev was forced to take great care in his actions. In addition to regulating his behavior to conform to prevailing party dictates, he had to steer clear of the Germans since they represented a foreign influence; yet, he had to account for the possibility that their help was essential to the success of his work, as mandated by Stalin. Negotiating all of these concerns required a delicate dance from all three constituencies—the bureaucrats, the Soviet engineers, and the German specialists. The bureaucrats (Ustinov, Gonor, and others) needed to satisfy Stalin’s whims to build long- range ballistic missiles, a goal that would fail, they believed, without the help of the Germans; they sought to give the Germans the resources they needed but recognized that parallel and independent work by Germans and Soviets was financially untenable. The designers (Korolev, Mishin, and others) needed to avoid the kind of behavior that would get them fired, purged, or worse, especially given the pressures to reinforce a new nationalist tenor in Soviet science in the early cold war years; they did not want to be working for the Germans or having the Germans work for them… A solution to this Gordian knot was found through complex gymnastics that left the one constituency who had little or no power, the Germans, out in the cold. Taking advantage of the vigilant need for secrecy, industrial managers such as Ustinov and Gonor effectively slowed down German work on the G-1 missile until the Soviets matched the German quality of work. Once the Soviet side had eclipsed the Germans, the perceived utility of the latter plummeted.”


 * This essay could be used to update the article and important points included in the lead.


 * Summarising the above points, and incorporating some of your changes, I came up with the following draft of the lead. In the interest of reaching a consensus I have also deleted most of the references to years in the lead:
 * During World War II Nazi Germany developed rocket technology that was more advanced than that of the Allies and a race commenced between the Soviet Union and the United States to capture and exploit the technology. Soviet rocket specialist were sent to Germany in 1945 to obtain V-2 rockets and worked with German specialists in Germany and later in the Soviet Union to understand and replicate the rocket technology and develop concept studies for long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.


 * The use of Nazi Germany rocket technology and involvement of German scientists and engineers played a central role to early Soviet efforts. The use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, by the end of the 1940’s the Soviets had frozen out the German specialists and made very little use of their expertise and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal.
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, the last sentence "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, by the end of the 1940’s the Soviets had frozen out the German specialists and made very little use of their expertise and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal." is not neutral enough for a consented lead. The "end of 1940's" is less precise than possible and the "future influence .. was marginal" statement at the end of the lead might be mistaken as covering the whole work of the German specialists (even if smoothed by the word "future"). The question of whether (and when) the German expertise was marginal should be discussed in the Historical analysis section where I do not expect that the controversary discussion would ever reach a consensus.

Therefore I propose the following sentence at the end of the lead section:
 * "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program."

I'm asking why the Soviet space program is referenced here. The absolute focus of German concept studies was missile technology (or Soviet rocketry), with Minister of Armaments Dmitry Ustinov as the driver who forced both Sergei Korolev and the German collective into a partly competitive situation (which eventually paid off). Even Korolev could not dare to openly promote space projects. But this is a side aspect only and I leave it up to your preference. --SchmiAlf (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In reply to your specific points:
 * To specify “1949” you would need a specific source that actually states this, do you have one? If you don’t want to use "end of 1940's" then Siddiqi (2000) specified “1947” and Neufeld (2012) specifies “1948”.  Therefore “…after 1947-48…” is supported by these sources and can be used.
 * For the end of the sentence Neufeld (2012) states “…they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” Siddiqi (2000) states “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”. I would suggest a combination of the two would be “… they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used. After this date the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was minimal.”
 * Regarding including “the Soviet space program”, as this article is called “German influence on the Soviet space program” I would suggest that it is included.
 * To summarise the above my suggestion for the lead is:


 * During World War II Nazi Germany developed rocket technology that was more advanced than that of the Allies and a race commenced between the Soviet Union and the United States to capture and exploit the technology. Soviet rocket specialist were sent to Germany in 1945 to obtain V-2 rockets and worked with German specialists in Germany and later in the Soviet Union to understand and replicate the rocket technology and develop concept studies for long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.


 * The use of Nazi Germany rocket technology and involvement of German scientists and engineers played a central role to early Soviet efforts. The use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, after 1947-48 they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used. After this date the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was minimal.
 * Note that, as I have outlined above, to comply with MOS:INTRO to include this new lead we would also have to add to the main part of the article:
 * highlight the issue that Siddiqi 2000 & 2009 flagged regarding :two clearly distinct issues: the use of recovered German technology and the use of the actual German scientists” in the article.
 * adding to the article Siddiqi’s (2009) further reasons as to why the Soviets ignored German expertise, including secrecy requirements, Zhdanovshchina and Korolev’s conviction as an enemy of the state.

Ilenart626 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition some remarks to Siddiqi (2009). Beyond the more detailed description of the political background it does not provide updated information (or analysis) of the potential German technical involvement (and Soviet interest) in 1949 for the G-2 and G-4 designs based on Ustinov's 1951 report and Uhl's Stalins V-2 (except quoting them). It still suffers from the same errors and incompleteness as detailed above in the reliability discussion. --SchmiAlf (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree! My reading of Siddiqi (2009) is that he uses Ustinov's 1951 report, Uhl's Stalins V-2 and other sources to support his conclusions. Note the following “In this essay, I use recently accessible Russian archival sources to reconstruct the experience of German rocket scientists forcibly relocated to the Soviet Union during the early cold war.” Yes it does not support your assertion that “It still suffers from the same errors and incompleteness as detailed above in the reliability discussion”. As I have already said a number of times, I believe your assertions in the reliability discussion above are based on your own opinions and synthesis of a variety of sources.


 * I also note that the majority of your arguments are supported by primary sources where all my sources are secondary sources. Suggest you review WP:PST and how you need to utilise secondary sources. Note in particular “ All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (German influence on Soviet space program)
An RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is a good idea. I will take the lead within 36 hours.

Back-and-forth discussion in the section for back-and-forth discussion may continue, but we also need to address the main issue.

The primary issue had been whether the article should say that German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal. Has there been agreement either to accept that statement, or remove that statement, or include a different statement in its place? If there has not been agreement, we will use an RFC. Participants will choose between leaving the statement in and removing it, unless there is also a different statement proposed.

Please answer concisely whether there has been agreement, and whether there is an alternative statement to consider. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment 8.1 by moderator
The RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is now running at RSN. Please participate in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (German influence on Soviet space program)
Eighth statement by SchmiAlf

Based on ilenart's reply in the back and forth discussion there is no agreement. Therefore I agree to Robert's proposal for an RFC. My position is to delete the last sentence of the lead section: "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal."

My alternative proposal (disagreed by ilenart626) was: "However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program."

Siddiqi 2000 states non-marginal activities during 1948 into 1950 contradicting his isolated conclusion ("After 1947 influence ... only marginal", p. 84) as I already mentioned in my sixth statement. In April 1949, Ustinov urgently ordered the German specialists to work on G-4 (R-14) and G-5 designs (see also Ustinow 1951) with results reviewed by Soviet managers and specialists in October 1949 who ordered "minor redesign efforts until February 1950" (Siddiqi, p. 81), and "the Soviets continued to ask advice on technical matters well into 1951. [...] In early 1951, groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans at these excellent facilities. It was the last time that the Soviets would make active use of German expertise in the postwar years." (Siddiqi, p. 82).

The "marginal" statement substantially lacks plausibility because the majority of the German team was released back to Germany only in June 1952 due to secrecy reasons. Why should they remain in the USSR if knowing not more than all details of V-2 (and its Soviet "copy" R-1) and some ideas for the elongated R-2? Anatoly Zak (2012), Russian Web Space, described the situation of 1949/1950 as follows:


 * "In October 1949, Ustinov returned to the island, apparently in the company of Pobedonostsev and Korolev. Presence of Korolev, who would normally avoid direct contact with the German team, hints about the importance of the G-4 project for the ongoing work at NII-88. After reviewing the project with the Germans, the Soviet team returned to Podlipki with all the results of the research on the G-4.
 * In April 1950, there were more visitors from NII-88 with inquiries about the G-4, however against all his hopes, Gröttrup was not invited to any meetings in Podliki. Yet, his Soviet colleagues hinted that the project once again received positive reviews. It was another deja vu for the Germans, as they were not offered any responsible positions in the implementation of the project. Inquires for various updates and studies of details related to the G-4 continued coming in from the "mainland" during 1950, however Germans started quickly loosing interest in the rocket they surely would not be allowed to build or see flying. Yet, reluctantly they continued work on the project during 1950, once again submitting all the results to the officials from "mainland."

--SchmiAlf (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
I think that the choice comes down to between the existing wording, which is:  or the alternate wording, which is:    Are those the choices? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A draft RFC is in draft at Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program/RFC on last sentence of lede. Please review it and indicate whether it states the issue correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Ninth statement by SchmiAlf

For clarity, I'd like to add the word thereafter to my preferred version:
 * However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and thereafter made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program.

--SchmiAlf (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statement by ilenart626

Would also suggest in addition to options A and B an additional option C, which is the last alternative I suggested that ScmilAlf rejected, with slight modifications.


 * However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, after 1947-48 they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used, the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal.

Have updated Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program/RFC on last sentence of lede. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sean Combs
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

I added a short sentence regarding the allegations against Sean Combs. These allegations have been widely reported in mainstream notable press since the arrest of Duane Keith Davis for Tupac Shakur's murder. They have also been responded to publicly by Sean Combs. The edit was reverted for being "libellous" and "fringe".

I understand this is a touchy subject, and that fringe or defamatory accusations have no place on Wikipedia. It is not my intention to cast aspersions on a living person, but merely to acknowledge years of mainstream reporting of this accusations, and for the Sean Combs page to reflect every other article on this subject on Wikipedia: Duane_Davis_(gangster), Orlando_Anderson, Murder_of_Tupac_Shakur.

Unfortunately, attempts to resolve the concerns of other editors in the page itself (by adding more reputable sources) have been met with threats on my talk page. I have made my argument on the page and would appreciate another voice in the conversation.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Another voice in the discussion would be helpful. If this topic should not be banned from the page, then it would allow other editors to improve on what was suggested without fear of repercussions. At the moment that is not possible.

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

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

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

Sean Combs discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of their filing of this dispute. Also, this dispute appears to be about whether certain information about living persons is sufficiently reliable to be posted in Wikipedia.  The biographies of living persons noticeboard is probably a better forum for such an inquiry.  Sean Combs and Duane Davis (gangster) are living persons, and information about murdered persons such as Tupac Shakur often includes information about living persons who are accused of murdering them.  If the other editors are notified, we can attempt to discuss here, but we advise that the discussion be at BLPN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You are right. BLPN would be a better forum. WikiMane11 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)