Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66

Talk:Bend, Not Break
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 is a back & forth over the article's content. One user says things are incorrect and non-neutral, but other than giving vague answers as to what's wrong, doesn't actually seem to be offering any true suggestions in my opinion. The original argument by VanHarrisArt was to redirect to the article for Ping Fu, but he's since capitulated on this. Now it's essentially a back and forth between him and I where nothing is really getting accomplished. It's really just me saying that his actions seem to be more white knighting than editing since he's more worried about how the bullies might twist things around to suit their purposes than really suggesting improvements and him saying that I'm making accusations. Now I want to stress that neither or us are really being nasty. Both of us are civil, but it is heated and getting ever more so over time. We really need someone to mediate and to help wade through everything. It's gotten really off topic and there's not really any real suggestions on how to fix anything. It's turning into pretty much a mud slinging competition on both sides.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've brought it up to the 3rd opinion board and to be fair, ran it through AfD since so many people were trying to get it deleted in one fashion or another.

How do you think we can help?

Mediation, primarily. We need some third voices to come into the thread and get things back on track, as well as help suggest alternatives to the issues. I'm taking this here before bringing it to the admin board.

Opening comments by VanHarrisArt
The last thing I wrote on the talk page before she opened this DRN was "Keep - If this article is maintained subject to WP:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article template, I think it's possible to keep it from being a WP:Content Fork from Ping Fu. The article still needs work, though."

There is no impasse. No reversions. No content dispute. At least not yet. This DRN was premature. As were the AfD and the Third Option she opened -- both of which were procedurally closed as a result. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hell In A Bucket
I think this is a case that can be solved via tags for the time being. Van Harris Art leaves rather lengthy responses (there's nothing wrong with this!) and has a strong opinion (also nothing wrong with this) but I don't see edit warring, or P.A. This doesn't mean that third opinions or more eyes aren't needed either but I think that the state of the article as is can be developed over time. Mediation doesn't always have to be negative either but in this case may be a tad premature. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bend, Not Break discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello, I volunteer here at the DRN board. This doesn't mean I have any special powers but will simply try mediate the discussion and provide and outside view. Once all parties have contributed their opening statements we can get started. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My big thing is that I keep getting told "this is wrong", yet I'm not told in specific what is wrong. It isn't until the IP came on and commented that I'm finally getting input on what exactly was improperly phrased. Add on that I'm also getting told "this is wrong, fix it or you're going to get a billion angry internet bullies on here that'll use this to harm other people", and you can see why I'm seeing VanHarrisArt's statements as unhelpful and sort of white knighting. How am I to read his mind to know exactly what is or isn't correct? I only know what I found via the RS and on Fu's article, and I really didn't appreciate someone telling me that something was wrong somewhere in the article but never telling me exactly what. I assumed it was all things directly in the controversy section, considering what I was getting told. Like I said, it's entirely unhelpful and very frustrating for someone to keep telling you "you're wrong" but never actually contribute beyond that. Initially it was a matter of one person trying to get it deleted, then redirected, and I guess initially he was waiting to see if it'd get redirected before actually doing anything. The thing is, if you're saying that I'm missing something that could potentially be harmful, then you need to WP:BEBOLD and fix it or at the very least, be more specific about what I'm getting wrong and offer suggestions on how else to phrase whatever is wrong. The conversation kept going back and forth with very little progress other than VanHarrisArt capitulating on getting it deleted/redirected after a few others came in and said that the article should remain. I think that getting a dispute resolution is very necessary in this situation because if he's right in that we have SPAs coming in that have bad faith in mind, we need to fix what's wrong NOW by specifically identifying what's wrong and suggesting re-writes of the situation, not arguing amongst ourselves. Basically put, almost all of the responsibility of fixing everything was being put on my shoulders and when I don't know what exactly I'm doing wrong, it's easy to see where I'd imagine that someone is here to white knight and get frustrated that I'm continually being told that I'm doing something wrong and that nothing I did was right. I mean, if I'm not doing something right then why not step in and actually contribute by specifically detailing what's wrong and giving alternatives rather than just saying that a term is wrong for one reason or another. I mean, after a while I kept feeling like I was getting told "the term critic is wrong because nobody anywhere that has something negative to say about the book actually read the book". No, that's not exactly what was being said, but that's what it felt like. Maybe we weren't throwing daggers at each other across the talk forum, but do we really need to wait until we're openly hostile to seek dispute resolution? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of long winded talk being thrown around here, can someone summerize (in less than 150 words) the dispute at hand. As far as I can tell, all editors are in favour of keeping the article. The article seems well sourced and neutral to me, what exactly is the issue? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The basic dispute is that there's an argument over what to put in the article and whether the current state is neutral. I felt like it was, VanHarrisArt said it wasn't, and we started squabbling over specific terms because that's all that I really had to go on. He'd tell me things were wrong but never gave an alternative. Then it turned into nothing but back and forths that had nothing to do with the article. Initially it was an argument over whether it should be kept or not, but that's since been resolved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I ask VanHarrisArt, what are the specific issues you wish addressed? Again, please keep it short and sweet (less than 150 words is ideal). Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought this DRN was premature to start with. The only content issue I'm looking to get address is this: I think Bend, Not Break should adhere to the WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article, so it doesn't end up turning into a content fork. (The article is already attracting disruptive editors.) If we can agree on that, then we have a direction to move towards. VanHarrisArt (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering it is a non-fiction book I don't see why that would be a problem, Tokyogirl, do you agree with this? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me add a few things. I realize that TokyoGirl put a lot of energy and thought into fixing the Bend, Not Break article, and I came along, and started to tell her it had problems. In retrospect, I realize that it might have come across as a personal put down. If it did, I apologize. I didn't jump in to start editing the page myself, because, first, I wasn't initially sure if it was going to stay, or be merged back with Ping Fu, and second, because, with the online vigilante campaign against Ping Fu, I've been wasting too much time undoing the attack pages, BLP violations, and advocacy posted by WP:SPA and WP:IP editors. I'll have more time to do thoughtful editing in the next week (I'm not that fast a writer.) VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I know TokyoGirl is currently busy with her RfA but I sense that this dispute is all but resolved. If no one has any further comments I'll be closing it within 24 hours. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Timtrent#Please_fix_your_signature...
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

Timtrent's signature is unnecessarily confusing and he refuses to fix it. He claims to be "Fiddle Faddle" which in NO way resembles "Timtrent". His basis for refusing is "Pot/Kettle." This is invalid because my signature of "T13" does resemble "Technical_13".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I requested he change it on his talk page, and he actively refuses.

How do you think we can help?

Explain to him that there is no grandfather clause ("has been the same since I started editing Wikipedia") on signatures and his signature is not "100% in accordance with policies and guidelines."

Opening comments by Timtrent
The complainant is being disruptive by both posting on my talk page and then by opening this case. The sole participation I will have in this case to to state that you can judge me by my editing record.

I have no interest in this topic at all. Pointless wikilawyering is aggravating. The opening of this case is bizarre at best. I was going to assume good faith of this editor, but this behaviour means I am unable to. I will have no further interaction with them, nor have I had any previous interaction. Perhaps someone would point them in the direction of decent conduct. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Timtrent#Please_fix_your_signature... discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Iambic Pentameter, Sonnet, Cat (Disambiguation)
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

Last January 16-21, I tried to post a worthy example of a free modern iambic pentameter sonnet which I wrote and is freely available but an editor said it is unworthy self-promotion which doesn't seem fair to me since there is no reason there should be a modern example. He also didn't like my special definition in Cat (Disambiguation). I don't see why authors like me who have written quality material can not make submissions as well as other editors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I just tried to repost my submissions but he kept deleting them.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe someone else could repost them so it isn't ME the author of the works who is adding them. They could also add my post or something similar anywhere in the Poetry section itself. Even one link would be fair.

Opening comments by BKonrad
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Iambic Pentameter, Sonnet, Cat (Disambiguation) discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Microsoft Office 365
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 have been numerous disputes and an edit war involving multiple IP editors (who have only edited the Office 365 page, and are presumed to be the same person over whether the service can be considered "software as a service" via POV pushing and edit warring.

After a semi was granted, Dogmaticeclectic reverted the edits again after a discussion with the IP users. Dogmaticeclectic has been also involved in numerous and highly uncivil edit wars on several Microsoft-related pages over the last few days.

Multiple sources use the term SaaS to describe the service, but they have all been rejected by the IP user as being a marketing term and allegedly inaccurate. One of the IP editors also changed the SaaS page to remove Office 365 in order to push this POV.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We went through a BRD cycle, and a semi was given to the article in question.

How do you think we can help?

Just... do something. Also possibly investigate potential sockpuppetry too.

Opening comments by 70.56.59.36
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 71.208.21.121
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:Microsoft Office 365 discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Organizational Logos
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

On List of trade unions in the United Kingdom, FTSE 100 Index and a number of other pages, editors have obstructed the use of organisation logos. These logos are fair use by law (for instance, see this Financial Times page, using all company logos here ). See the pages before intervention eg here or here.

The dispute is whether the more restrictive Wikipedia policies WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC & WP:NFCC are affected, and what can be done to allay these concerns. The best result must be that Wikipedia can use logos. This isn't obviously a matter of "corporate advertising" (as has been one suggestion, because this is also useful for trade union pages, or pages with public bodies (eg List of largest United Kingdom employers).

The argument that it breaches WP policies are mistaken because there are no free equivalents (#1), the use is minimal (#3), and use significantly increases readers understandings (#8) in the same way that use of logos does on ordinary company pages (eg. in the infobox of Royal Dutch Shell). It has been argued that company names are enough for the lists for people's understanding, etc - but if that were true, we'd have to get rid of logos for all individual pages as well, because the same arguments could be made there. Accordingly I'd kindly like to request support for using the logos. I'm very happy to concede we may need to put appropriate copyright disclaimers on the image pages, though once again, it is clear that everything is indeed fair use. Help much appreciated,  Wik idea  16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The talk page, and discussion opened on Non-free content review

How do you think we can help?

Clarify Wikipedia policy on copyrighted image use. It's important that use which enhances understanding continues.

Opening comments by Drmies
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Black Kite
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Kww
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Werieth
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Organizational Logos discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

List of sopranos in non-classical music
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 attempted to delete a factually erroneous inclusion of Laura Branigan's name under this page. I did not have any verifiable sources to back such up, only the facts about female vocal ranges. An editor named Liz exhibited un-objective partiality, a lack of neutrality, and fierce territoriality over my daring to question one of the sources cited: The New York Times. She acted as though I had committed a transgression and will not use reason or common sense, going so far as to defend the Times against any questioning or criticism. In her eyes, the Times can do no wrong whatsoever. This behavior is not permitted by Wikipedia.

The fact is that Laura Branigan's name does not belong on this list because she was not a Soprano vocalist, but a Contralto. I provided Liz with all of the facts about female vocal ranges to back up my assertion, but she will not budge, claiming that I need nothing less than a verifiable source with which to counter the inclusion of Miss Branigan's name. Unfortunately, I am not able to locate any verifiable sources which correctly state Miss Branigan's correct vocal range. That, however, doesn't make the New York Times correct.

I've learned that disagreeing editors are supposed to form a consensus for challenging the removal of information if there is no verifiable source, but Liz did not do that; she punished me by stating that the New York Times is not to be challenged and that Miss Branigan's name would remain on the list.

Common sense dictates that just because something is verifiable doesn't automatically make it accurate enough to warrant inclusion, let alone emphasis. While reliable sources are indeed a necessary condition for asserting something, they are not a sufficient condition by themselves. And while "truth" may not be 100% sufficient, it is completely necessary.

Liz, unfortunately, has shown no common sense and has completely lost sight of this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I attempted to discuss this issue with Liz several times, using facts to back it up. She would not budge. I then e-mailed Wikipedia's Information Team on February 20th, who told me that they do not resolve editing disputes by e-mail. Instead, they pointed me to several options, including this page, which is why I am filling out this form. This is the first option I chose to pursue.

How do you think we can help?

Inform Liz that her behavior is against Wikipedia's policies. She is not being objective, impartial, or neutral. She believes that the New York Times is infallible and not to be challenged; that right there is blatant partiality. By rigidly sticking to the rules, she has lost sight of the big picture. She has exhibited a stunning lack of common sense and cannot reason that everyone makes mistakes, even a "known, reliable source subjected to strict editorial guidelines" like the Times.

Opening comments by LizFL
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

List of sopranos in non-classical music discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Ex-gay movement, LGBT rights at the United Nations, Justice
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 are multiple disputes over these three articles. The Justice dispute resolves around the violation of WP:Lead and inserting information claiming to be fact, when it isn't established as such.

The Ex-gay movement dispute is about the overuse of quote marks, It makes the lead difficult to read and ridiculously biased.

You can read about the dispute at LGBT rights at the United Nations from the edit summaries and talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just a lot of discussion on the talk pages and edit summaries.

How do you think we can help?

There's been a lot of discussion around these articles and we can't come to an agreement so others are needed to decide.

Opening comments by Scientiom
User:Govgovgov has been moving around from article to article pushing his POV, has been making blatant personal attacks, and has been blatantly stalking and harrasing me. I have left a note about his behaviour here with evidence: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies. These serious problems should be sorted out and solved as first priority. The harassment is making me very uncomfortable editing here on Wikipedia. --Scientiom (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, disputing your recent edits to three articles is harassment. I don't know how you can continue to operate the keyboard after these deeply unnerving acts by me. Govgovgov (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement, LGBT rights at the United Nations, Justice discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.


 * Hi. I am Go   Phightins  !, a volunteer here at the DR noticeboard. I wanted to let you both know that I will look into your case tomorrow. Please remember, however, that this board is only for discussing content, not other users' conduct, so you'll need to go elsewhere if you need assistance in that area. Thanks.  Go   Phightins  !  02:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While I am a regular volunteer her at DR/N I will be taking a regular participant role here and will be watching this dispute with interest as a member of Project LGBT studies.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am yet a third regular volunteer here at DRN. I probably won't be substantially participating in this case, but I would like to note that: (a) In light of his/her comments, above, unless Scientiom avers that s/he will participate in this as a content discussion, this is probably only a conduct matter and ought to be closed. (b) There is a lack of substantial discussion in reference to both Justice and, especially, Ex-gay movement and this case should probably be limited, if it moves forward at all, to just LGBT rights at the United Nations. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Filing editor has been idef blocked. Suggest this filing be closed.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Jan z Jani
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

Article named "Jan de Jani" was proposed to be moved to Jan z Jani" which is polish spelling. In following discussion, several persons without knowledge about subject of spelling names in correct way took part of the discussion, dismissing spelling as "french" and ignoring my explanation that it is latin sonce Jan z Jani lived around year 1400 so in documents it is written in latin.

Furtheremore, I explained how polish names from medieval time could be spelled in proper english. If we do not spell in latin then the name should clearly be changed to "Jan of Janie". I also wrote reference note to the spelling in the article.

The art have been moved to "Jan z Jani" and my reference and explanation to the name in the art. have been removed. I would like to forward this issue to be overviewed by poeple that are more familiar with this subject and also know that in year 1400 it was not french that was inuse but latin. I would rather say that refering to french spelling disqualify those that voted.

I would also like to reach consensus in question of spelling such names so we can spell then in one way and not in several different. If we use spelling "Jan z Jani" then we sgould also make changes in all other articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I communicated with Piotrus that astarted this issue and explained for him the situation. By his suggestion, I wrote a reference note about the spelling and I also suggested to move the art to "Jan of Janie". No negative responce of Piotrus but no change or conclusions from his side.

How do you think we can help?

I would like You to review this question and be part of the discussion. When decision is made, we would then agree on spelling although I cannot understand any other spelling (except latin) than english. Since it is english wiki and not polish. There are many medievalnames spelled with of and of what I can see, it is pretty common to do so. Otherwise we will have to change all the names with "of" to polish "z" or "ze".

All polish scientiests and consultants say "Jan of Janie" or latin spelling.

Opening comments by BDD
I would strongly suggest this thread be closed. It's too simple a matter for DRN. One editor opposed the outcome of an RM; he or she should use MRV if the result is felt to be procedurally inappropriate, or a later RM with new information if it is felt to be substantially inappropriate. This is premature. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote arguments that have been disregarded. It is simply question of spelling in correct way and it should be importand because there are many other articles that will face such problem. So instead of 100 discussions in the future, we could have one. Please use more polite language when writing Your opinion. camdan (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that several users commented on the requested move discussion in which you did not prevail does not establish that your views were disregarded. No, they were simply opposed with appropriate grounds given. You can't oppose something you ignore, so the fact that they were opposed implies that they were considered and rejected. Your side was unsupported and unsupportable but nevertheless you cannot deny that it still had its day in the sun. The matter ought to be resolved (as it is per Wikipedia's policies) in accordance with WP:CONSENSUS--and it was. You don't get to keep rehashing stale and incorrect arguments just because you're unhappy that your argument was not successful or because you do not agree with the resolution of the matter wrought by a wider consensus.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not consider arguments like "unhappy" to be answered since its emotional. I would rather concider this as academic question and to be correct to publication on wiki. I also think that we all should be very careful with writing what is right and wrong because it is subjective point of view. Now, extept Your emotional respond to back up what You, with all respect, think it is right, please provide with sources that we can answer to, because just talking or writing does not have any values at all. camdan (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Piotrus
Camdan makes some good points, but he made them after the RM has started and was near its finish. Much of his argumentation was also at Wikipedia_talk:POLAND and worse, User_talk:Piotrus, neither of which is read by all parties of the RM. Because I got a lot of comments over the past few days on my talk page (I am teaching a course and have ~20 newbie students posting on my talk regularly now, sigh) I also missed his request that I move the article few days ago, which I guess led to this DRM. (@Camdan, I have not ignored your request on purpose, I simply missed it). If Camdan wants to start a new RM, go ahead and start it. I may consider not opposing the "of" version, although I doubt I can support it as I am afraid it still suffers from the WP:OR/WP:COMMONNAME problem.

Personally, I wish Camdan good luck in his wiki editing, we had a good discussion, but I think he needs to reread OR/COMMONNAME, and he probably misunderstands how RM and this board operate. If, as I suspect, this is closed with no action, I encourage him to either present sources that use his preferred spelling, or drop this issue until such a time they are present, and focus on writing about a more document topic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough form me, there have been several missunderstandings in the communication with several persons that is now clear. I wish to discuss further this issue so we can reach consensus. I thank Piotrus for kind response and I will move this discussion to other forum, case here is closed. Sincerely, camdan (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by ColonelHenry
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.


 * First Comment Many Polish (and other Eastern European) surnames are rendered in the 18th to 19th century using the French preposition "de." All things French were the rage then, and the French renderings were preferred in the spirit of a lingua franca as being of a more elitist, classist standing than the original ethnic prepositions. Jan z Jani is correct for his lifetime and for today while Jan de Jani is an inauthentic and revisionist rendering from the 19th century. Speaking from my degree work in classics, User:Camdan's assertion that the name "de" is of Latin origin is preposterous and unsupportable as there is no actual word for "of" in Latin.  In Latin, the preposition "of" is implied in the form the noun takes (typically genitive or dative, rarely nominative) and is never a stand-alone word in a name.  I support renaming the article Jan z Jani per Piotrus given its historical accuracy and I would eschew naming it Jan of Jani or any other permutation using an English preposition--such a construction would be culturally insensitive and incorrect.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Second comment. We do not propose changing all the Germanic von names to "of" (i.e. Otto von Bismarck, Otto von Habsburg) neither would we consider changing French names (i.e. Marquis de Sade, Marquis de Lafayette, Honore de Balzac) or Spanish names (i.e. Juan de la Cierva, Juan de la Garza). Jan z Jani would comport with the spirit and desired precision/recognizability/etc. of WP:TITLE, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME (q.v. meeting both criteria (frequency and correctness) in The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct), and per WP:UE because the non-anglicized form predominate(s) in English language reliable sources and  per WP:EN we are instructed to use the name which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (which from my cursory review of reliable sources on the subject and related history would be Jan z Jani) noting that I refuse to take into consideration the algorithmic biases of Google.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Colonel, You are absolutely right on what You write, however, as I stated before, it is not the issue in this particular case. I have never seen french spelling of the name also because I study medieval documents and are working on scientifical publication on similar subjects. Since it is medievasl name and we all know that by that time, everything was spelled in latin, spelling "Jan de Jani" was reffering to the medieval and not french. In documetns there are 2 kind of spelling - Joannes de Janie and Jan von der Jane (Yane). As to the spelling of "Jan of Janie" it would be correct translation of the name to english. In similar way, translation of "Scibor ze Sciborzyc" in polish is "Stibor of Stiboricz" although if You ask a professors that are competent in this matter, they would say that "Stibor of Sciborzyce" would be more correct spelling. We misspell it since it is misspelled in publications. Using of in english in natural, as in other wikipedia, germans spell it with "von" or "zu", we have hungarian spelling and we have other spellings of names. Here on english wiki I suggest we use english spelling. Thank You. camdan (talk) 17.50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree, you point to two Late Medieval/Renaissance usages...In documetns [sic] there are 2 kind [sic] of spelling - Joannes de Janie and Jan von der Jane (Yane). One is a debauched Latin adopted as an affectation because of hegemonic French and Spanish morphological influences (described here), the other is German construction. Medieval and Renaissance Latin evolving by taking on vernacular constructions (see the examples of such macaronic influences at Dog Latin and referenced articles). Neither is Latin in a precise definition but a Vulgar Latin that became colloquial (and essentially a discrete language) by ethnic considerations (neither of which was a Polish influence), and given the policies above that emphasize precision and common modern/present-day usage, "z" is far more used as a standard in reliable sources than "de" or "of". To do otherwise would be culturally insensitive (which you do not comment on) and imprecisely incorrect (which you do not comment on) and historically inaccurate. Your desire to call him Jan de Jani is fraught with contradiction in using a classist and revisionist 19th century French form name (Jan de Jani) claiming that its supported by a Late Medieval/Renaissance French-Vulgar Latin form (Joannes de Janie) to name an article on English wikipedia about a Polish person who most reliable modern scholarship and popular references refer to by his Polish form). As if *that* isn't cultural insensitive and imprecise. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Third Comment - per WP:MOSPOL, Favour the use of Polish spelling and diacritics to ensure accuracy and respect for the subject unless there is established usage in verifiable reliable sources in English. - established usage and reliable sources in English leans toward "z". Further, if there is any better evidence of 19th century French influence on culture, look at the mention of Frédéric Chopin.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir Colonel, before writing words as vulgar, You should be aware of what consensus of people that correct errors would have to say. Your emotianal input have no sources and no value at all, please provide sources so I can reflect. Your lack of knowledge in this subject is obviouse to all persons that wish to correct errors in sources regarding history of Poland in medieval time. I would thik Your souces are from publications that are common and that I understand that common people believe in, however this is just romantic point of view and we, PhD and professors struggle now to corect older publications, You certainly do not have any academic education at all in such subject, Your input is pure emotional. Now, the issue is about spelling so please provide ANY english publication where the name is spelled with "z" or "ze" insted of "of". Thank You for taking time to discuss matter, Sincerely, camdan (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Two points should be enough. (1) Vulgar, from vulgaris, vulgus = "common", or "common people" in Latin. (2) Vulgar Latin. Shows how much you *think* you know. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Input on french, dear Colonel, there is no person in polish academic world from PhD and up that would consider this spelling as french, please contact any person with knowlegde to verify that! Furtheremore, this subject is not about what You think since You do not have any academic degree in subject. It is simply a matter of translating so we reach consensus how we go forward with hundreds or thousands of other spellings that we will then have to correct and. Please note that we that research errors have to work 7-10 years to establish those under supervision of professors of Jageillonian University and also of Bydgoszcz and to be able to publish. Lack of new publications help people without education in subject to try to undermine what is obviouse for us so in any case and when first publication will come in 4-5 month time, Jan z Jani will be tranfered to Jan of Janie according to sources, publictions and common sence. I second Your emotional input about the subject and I could also add much, much more about it but here it is about consensus how to spell medieval names in english. Now, Piotrus put this issue on the board. He did not say anything about spelling with "de" or "of" reviding several articles on en:wiki that I partly creaded. Instead, he confirmed B-status of one of them. So, in 2 years, no reflections and then suddenly an issue of Jan de Jani. I do agree that Jan de Jani was not the best transaltion, it should be "Jan of Janie". Simply to tell, anyone that write on the subject should have academic education and those that do not have such education shuld actually reflect on what they are writing since it is just pure reflection of subjective mind and not scientific or academic. Finally...any academic publication in english will use "of" and not "z" unless it is latin. That would be end of discussion! Please comment if You can provide any academic source on subject - Your translation of wiki rules are just trying to defend knowledge in subject that You do not have. Sincerely [User:camdan|camdan]] (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously not worth a response, damnant quod non intellegunt, see above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You read publications but You do not read original sources, You think of french influence on latin year 1400 (!!???) which is not true and You publish lies here like on vulgar - read the definition of vulgar here and stop telling nonsens. You throw latin just to make people think that You have knowledge in subject that You do not have. You reference to french spelling is just embarrassing. camdan (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Volunteer Marek
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Ohconfucius
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
 * Is there really a dispute, or is this a mountain being made out of a molehill? --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Jan z Jani discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.


 * After reading comment from Piotrus and also from BDD - sorely missed on my talk page but posted on his that I did not see from the beginning, I would like to close this matter since I recognize that consensus can be made by arguments with respect for all aspects involving and in accordance to make wiki trustadle and free of errors. I have no more comments on this than close this matrer. camdan (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas
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

Verified to multiple reliable source content was removed. A discussion occurred between 27FEB2013 and 3MAR2013, regarding whether the content should remain excluded from the article space or reincluded. Those opposed to to inclusion pointed towards UNDUE and POV as issues as to why the content should be excluded. Those opposed to exclusion disagreed that the content had undue weight, and did not find POV issues with the content. Majority of editors agreed with inclusion, and content was re-added on 4MAR2013, at which point it was removed again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Per CANVASS#Appropriate notification I notified all WikiProjects that have tagged the article, in order to get the largest number of editors involved in the discussion as to create the strongest consensus. An RfC was not created for the discussion, given that more than half a dozen active editors have been involved in the discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps a non-involved volunteer can assist involved editors in reaching a compromise, or uphold or strike down current consensus.

Opening comments by Bbb23
Preliminary statement. Since I initially removed the material and all hell broke loose, I haven't been involved in the discussion. It would be helpful if in the Overview above, RCLC could be a little clearer as to what they want now. In these kinds of instances, the devil is in the details, and I prefer concrete proposals. One basis for removal of the material is WP:BLPCRIME (a misdemeanor is generally considered a crime, albeit, depending on the misdemeanor, a low-level one), although editors would probably argue interminably how well known Vargas is. As for RCLC's statement that a "majority" of editors agree that it should be included, that has one big problem and possibly another. First, consensus doesn't depend on a majority ("consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"), and, second, I haven't counted to see if RCLC is even correct. Finally, as an overarching issue, this is an article about a living person and should be held to a very high standard when it comes to negative information.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by BDD
I'll monitor this discussion intermittently, but I really just treated this as an RfC. I saw a dispute, offered my opinion as a third party, and didn’t watch or further participate in the discussion further. Looking over it, it would appear that there is consensus for the general position espoused by RightCowLeftCoast, which I supported. I think some of the suggestions for a more concise explanation of the events would be more appropriate for the article, however. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Stepheng3
I dislike conflict and do not wish to be involved further in this dispute. Whatever the outcome is, I trust it will be satisfactory to me. Please permit me to bow out of this process. —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nomoskedasticity
This is the edit in question. It's a friggin' traffic stop. It completely violates WP:UNDUE. It is part of LCRC's long-standing campaign to add negative content to this BLP (e.g. this one, using Michelle Malkin's website as a source). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Red Pen of Doom
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The content as originally added and then restored is not acceptable for many reasons: undue weight to a minor event / that may have received a lot of coverage during one news cycle but no indication of lasting impact or coverage / whose inclusion is intended to lead the reader to draw conclusions that the sources covering the incident do not make / which is especially problematic in an article about a living person. If there is evidence of continued coverage and analysis by reliable third parties that make explicit any importance of the incident, then perhaps a much scaled back version with analysis/commentary appropriately attributed might be acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Tvoz
I agree 100% with the statement above by TheRedPenOfDoom and could not have said it better. There are indeed multiple reasons why the wording that had been added was totally unacceptable, and no evidence has been presented of any reliably sourced continuing coverage of this incident to make it even remotely appropriate to be included in the article in any form at this time. Should that change - should this incident become notable somehow - there will be plenty of time to include a neutrally worded short sentence. But that is not the case at present. The only conceivable reason for adding this now is to cast a negative light on the subject of this article - which the article history will show has been tried before, as Nomoskedasticity points out - and that is not acceptable. As Bbb23 says, this is a BLP, and we need to adhere to the highest standards regarding negative material. Finally, I question this move to dispute resolution, especially with a misleading and incorrect opening comment, which for example, neglects to mention that BLP was a major reason for editors opposing adding the content the OP added. I was asked to comment here, but I am not committing to active participation - I will monitor any ongoing conversation, but I am not going to engage in a back-and-forth repetitive exercise here. Tvoz / talk 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Yworo
The OP is misrepresenting the situation. There may be support for the addition of a single neutral sentence to the article, as proposed by Bus stop. There is not support for the re-inclusion of the full paragraph that the OP is trying to re-insert. Yworo (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bus Stop
The suggested wording is too noisy and too busy. It contains irrelevancies. No one cares what college he was speaking at or the name of the jail he was brought to. We don't need to know about the Obama administration or whether or not Vargas fits into a "priority category for detention". Sorry but this is irrelevant to this biography. These details impart an aura of criminality to the biography. Yes, he is an illegal immigrant. But his driving without a license is merely a consequence of lacking the documentation that any citizen would have or could easily obtain. There are clearly opinions held by editors. The question is which wording is most neutral. I suggested the following:

"Vargas was arrested and briefly detained by officials in Minnesota for driving without a valid driver's license in October 2012. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were contacted but Vargas was released without any immigration charges being filed." Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Little Green Rosetta
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Driving on a suspended license in of itself isn't notable. What is notable is that the subject has been an advocate for undocumented persons and that he specifically stated that obtaining a drivers licesne is difficult for the undocumented. The fact that his license was revoked because of his admission, and the fact that he was detained hammers home his point. We don't need to craft text that is undue, but we should craft something  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello, I volunteer here at DRN and will be happy to try mediate this dispute. I'm having a read through the content and I have some thoughts but I will waiting until all editors involved have presented an opening statement. Once that has happened we can begin the discussion. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems like everyone has commented. Now, to me, the original version of the text did put undue weight on a small incident. It provided no critical commentary on the incident just a lot about the incident itself. A cut back mention of the incident was proposed on the talk page and that seems like the best solution. It's still mentioned but not to the extent that it currently is. How do people feel about that? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I understand the temptation to compromise in these situations. Even the short sentence proposed by Bus Stop is more than is warranted. As TRPoD states, there isn't enough at this point to justify putting it in. That said, I'm not strongly opposed to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see it is relevant to the individual since he is an active campaigner in that area of rights, which is one of the reasons it was covered in news to begin with. Thus it's notable and relevant enough for a mention but not all the details (if the reader is particularly interested in the details they can click through to the source) Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument, Cabe, and don't necessarily disagree with it, to a point. How do you resolve the WP:BLPCRIME issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to compromise as an ideal either, but it is not always the best solution. I do not think inclusion is warranted at present, for all the reasons stated above. And there being no continuing mention of this incident in reliable sources demonstrates its insignificance to this biography of a person's life and career, which is what this article is. Bbb23's question about BLPCRIME is well taken. Tvoz / talk 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome of Vargas' encounter with the law the results of that encounter are intrinsically of interest. It doesn't matter that this event was minor. Its interest and noteworthiness is intrinsic because he recently declared publicly that he is "undocumented"/"illegal" as concerns his relation to the US. Thus whether his encounter (with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was consequential or inconsequential, the results are the same from an editorial point of view. What we should not want to do is "spin" this into something that it is not. Thus I think that the bare mention of the incident is justified. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to resolve this issue via compromise. If that's the way things are going to go, then the way to get a piece of WP:UNDUE into an article is to write something long and detailed in expectation that it will get in by virtue of being cut down to essence.  The truth is, the essence here is trivial, and I do not agree that there is any need to cover a traffic stop in the article at all.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Without a third party specifically commenting about the relation of the incident to Vargas' campaigning, our plopping the incident in the article to promote such a connection is in violation of WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The traffic stop might have been minor but Vargas was "questioned by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement" and he "was released ... with no immigration charges being filed." Can we consider the following:
 * "In October 2013 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed." Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that NYT report is an outlier - no other reports of this incident say that he was questioned by ICE; in fact all the others say just that ICE was informed, but declined to pursue immigration charges. Which, again, makes this no different from all of the other times he has been brought to their attention - his writing, his testimony, his public appearances - and they declined to pursue immigration charges. Which is also what he meant - and we include - about being in limbo since his NYT revelation. Tvoz / talk 04:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion on the talk page which this dispute occurred at. I had shown that the event received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, I had shown that the event was followed up and given additional significant coverage after the initial event occurred. So WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really apply. As I said in the discussion on the talk page, I am willing to compromise due to wording, but to exclude it entirely is improper IMHO given the significant amount of significant coverage that the event received.
 * I can agree to Bus stop's reduced wording, but it should use all the reliable sources I have provided, so that the reader can see the details of the event if they so choose. To not provide the multitude of sources we have been able to find regarding the event would be a disservice to the reader.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLPCRIME, it refers to a situation when a person has been accused of a crime not a situation where they were involved with the police. If a person was accused of X but nothing had been confirmed/denied then BLPCRIME could apply, if after they are declared innocent in a court of law AND if the act of the accusation itself was noteworthy then we can mention it in the article as long as we are clear that they were innocent. So far I see at least one source (the NYT source) that has critical commentary on the event, are there others? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I retract my support for inclusion of any material related to the incident of October 2011. With chagrin I admit I had not seen this source, which shows that the failure of the authorities to act at the October 2011 incident is probably unremarkable. The traffic incident-related encounter with "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement" was probably no different from the year of inaction on the part of "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement" that is alluded to in that source. I concede that it would constitute undue weight to include in our article any mention of the traffic incident-related encounter with "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement". Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If we look at the sources, there were two crimes of which Vargas was only charged with violating one of them.
 * 1)Driving with out a drivers license due to the State of Washington revoking his license plate after he admitted to being an "undocumented immigrant" (Vargas' preferred term), charged.
 * 2)Being an Alien within the United Sates without authorization, not charged.
 * Vargas was arrested due to the first charge, was arrested, and then released after ICE chose not to charge Vargas with the second crime. This event received significant coverage from a multitude of reliable sources.
 * The event received continued significant coverage from at least three reliable sources regarding the outcome and the background behind the first crime. I provided the links to that continued coverage in the talk page where the dispute originated.
 * WP:BLPCRIME does not apply was followed, and I would argue, strictly. Vargas is well known, and had pleaded guilty to the crime charged. There was no contradictory judgement and no "pithy descriptors" are used. The content was added after Vargas pleaded guilty, so presumed innocence does not apply.
 * I admit, the content should have reflected the guilty plea, but that is something that can be added, as it has been verified.
 * What can be verified was the following:
 * A)Vargas' license issued by the State of Washington was revoked sometime he admitted he was a "undocumented immigrant".
 * B)Vargas was in Minnesota to speak at Carlton College
 * C)Vargas was stopped by authorities, arrested and charged due to driving without a license, held until ICE did not charge Vargas, then released.
 * D)Vargas pleaded guilty to the charge of driving without a license.
 * A neutrally and briefly worded well referenced sentence could be added to the article, without it out weighing the multiple paragraphs that already exist in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I have to start over because I missed the guilty link above (it would have been nice had you included that source initially). That now rules out WP:BLPCRIME. There's no indication, however, that Vargas was arrested for being an undocumented immigrant. That's WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. The mere fact that ICE was called doesn't support that. Although the legal issues are unfortunately complicated, states generally arrest people for state crimes and then, depending on the circumstances, may contact ICE. In any event, it's a red herring as is this entire push to put the material into the article. I've gone round and round with you before on this article, and I'm tired of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This source shows us that the failure of immigration resources to act on Vargas' "illegal" status at the time of the traffic stop in October 2011 was not special and not noteworthy. The source shows that numerous opportunities existed for such governmental agencies to take action against Vargas aside from the one opportunity documented in the context of the traffic stop. The traffic stop in and of itself is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Including on at least two occasions - Obama's Las Vegas speech on immigration reform and Senate committee hearings - sitting in close proximity to, and talking to, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security who is in charge of ICE.  Adding this minor traffic matter is an attempt to smear the subject with allusions to criminal activity, which is unacceptable in  a BLP, regardless of whether the details of BLPCRIME specifically apply. Tvoz / talk 22:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Vargas was arrested for being an "undocumented immigrant", the reliable sources verify that he was arrested for driving without a driver license, at least one reliable source verifies that the driver license that Vargas had was one issued by the State of Washington that was revoked. The reliable sources further verify that he was held by authorities while ICE was contacted, and was released after ICE did not charge Vargas with any immigration law violations. Again, all this is verified, there is not SYNTH or OR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We now have greater clarity that what is at issue here is an extremely minor issue connected with driving. WP:UNDUE in spades.  I really think we're done -- no-one but RCLC is arguing it should be included.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, that's not quite accurate. By my tally, there are five editors who believe nothing should be included (TRPoD, Tvoz, Bus Stop, you, and me) and three editors who support some mention of the incident (RCLC, BDD, and lgr).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to flip-flop but upon reconsideration I think the sliver of a statement, "In October 2013 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed," warrants inclusion. There is no implication of criminality in the mention of a mere traffic stop, the general notion of no legal action being taken despite clear interaction with legal authorities is conveyed, and the New York Times is certainly a very good source. I think we should want to include this because this minor incident illustrates what seems to be an immigration policy of not pursuing Vargas, at least at this time, on immigration charges. A headline at the New York Times such as "No Immigration Charges Filed Against Activist in Traffic Stop" attests to this small incident's noteworthiness. Bus stop (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * if there were any explicit commentary on its importance and relevance by a reliable source, I would be fine with the short summary's inclusion. But WP:SYN we cannot place items in articles to explicitly lead readers towards some conclusion or analysis that is not directly stated in the source. While we may personally come up with understandings about what headline writers intended readers to infer, we cannot place that inference into the article. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * and the fact that no one seems to have thought "hey what a great example to use!" when Vargas has been so publicly visible at recent Senate hearings et al, just goes to confirm its non notableness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What synthesis do you see in the statement that I suggested for inclusion in the article? There is no WP:SYN in this statement: "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed." WP:SYN arises when two (or more) supported assertions are used to support an assertion which is really original research because the derived assertion lacks a source. But in the wording that I am suggesting all assertions are wholly supported by a good quality source. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * we cannot state nor imply something that is not explicitly stated in the reliable source. including an insignificant traffic stop would be implying that there is something important about it which none of the sources that I had seen including, the NYT piece, have actually said. The closest I have seen is the NPR piece that RCLC included below. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You say "we cannot state nor imply something that is not explicitly stated in the reliable source." The source I've provided contains the following paragraph:


 * "After the traffic stop, he was taken to the Hennepin County jail, where he was questioned by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency known as ICE. He was released Friday afternoon with no immigration charges being filed."


 * Doesn't the above paragraph, found in the source that I've provided, support the assertions that I have suggested for inclusion in our article? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not notable? I would highly disagree, please look at the the multiple major reliable sources that reported on Vargas' arrest. I shouldn't have to post them again here, as I had already done that on the talk page, but here it is: ABC, New York Magazine, MinnPost, Huffington Post, NYT, Politico, The Atlantic Wire, Star Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press hosted by Fox News, Philippine Daily Inquirer, ABS-CBN News, Philadelphia Daily News, another Politico story, and on, and on..
 * This is significant coverage, given this, and other content, it could would meet WP:EVENT & as I have shown there was coverage after the initial event with some depth. Even after all this there are those who say a sentence or two is undue weight?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * that is just an example of 24 hour news cycle coverage. the only one that covers the incident outside of the breaking-news-recent-event-that-happened sphere is this one :" Despite the fact that Vargas revealed his status in a most public way, Immigration and Customs Enforcement never came for him. Vargas' first brush with ICE came on a trip to Minnesota two months ago when he was pulled over as he drove to give a speech at Carlton College. ICE did not detain him." If you can come up with something encyclopedic out of that, I would be amenable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The brevity of the incident is precisely the point: "no immigration charges … [were] filed." We need not be concerned that this incident was not reported on for longer. There was nothing more to report. This incident had a total duration of about 4 hours. It is an important incident as evidenced by the numerous reliable sources listed above. This incident relates to much of what lengthy commentary in many sources refer to in relation to Vargas. His non-citizenship and his involvement in immigration issues is almost always mentioned in any source speaking about Vargas. Virtually every source mentions his immigrant status. His encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement is entirely on the topic that is most often mentioned in association with Vargas. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * but see, YOU are the one making that analysis about this traffic stop fits into "the big picture". without quoting a third party making the analysis and commentary and connections, Wikipedia cannot be creating "examples" to do so, particularly about living people in relation to criminal acts/run ins with "the law". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you please tell me where you find "analysis" in the wording I've suggested for inclusion? This again is the wording that I am suggesting for inclusion:
 * "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed." Bus stop (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As had been posted earlier, here are the articles which I had used to show that the event had continued coverage, and thus did not fall under WP:NOTNEWS.
 * Pinoy Pulitzer winner fined $378 for driving without license
 * What the arrest of immigration activist Jose Antonio Vargas says about Minnesota immigration policy
 * Court fines Vargas for driving without a valid driver’s license
 * This makes four articles that give significant coverage to the event after the initial news reporting period.
 * Although I agree that the content should be as brief as possible and neutrally worded, I believe it would be best to indicate the revocation of the Washington state drivers license, the stop, the traffic arrest, the release due to no ICE charges, and the subsequent guilty plea. All this can be done in one, or two sentence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I suppose that WP:SILENCE applies, as it has been several days since others have posted, that at minimum Bus Stop's summarize version is acceptable, and at most a slightly longer sentence containing all which lead up to, and ended this series of events (license revocation, stop/arrest, release, guilty plea) be included?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. If you add it, I'll revert it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why?
 * It can't be a verification issue,
 * It can't be a issue with the multiple reliable sources that have been provided here, and on the talk page,
 * It can't be a an issue of accusing a living individual with a crime, as Vargas already pleaded guilty to the crime.
 * So again, why? FYI, Because it isn't a positive event in Vargas' life isn't an appropriate answer.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the DRN thread reaper. I get called in when a DRN thread has gone on so long that it's just plain embarassing that informal resolution has not produced a solution. I've looked at the paragraph in question. I do concur that there's probably over presentation of this "crime" therefore I'd like to float a compromise
 * Vargas was arrested and released in Wisconsin in October 2012 for driving with a cancelled licence HUFFPO REFERENCE, which had been revoked shortly after the New York Times essay ABS-CBN NEWS REFERENCE .

This does 2 things. It tightens up the information into a reasonable length for the article and does point out how his immigration status has been a concern going forward. RCLC, this work for you? Other disputants, this work for you? Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for offering a "concrete proposal". I don't agree with it. But I think Bbb23 is correct up above when they say "In these kinds of instances, the devil is in the details, and I prefer concrete proposals." Your wording fails to mention "immigration". The "cancelled license" and the fact of "arrest" is not called for. The objection that many of us are raising is the implication of criminality. Let's keep two things separate. The man has violated immigration laws, but he is not of a criminal nature. He is not a scofflaw. Anything but. He is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who has led an exemplary life by most standards. Therefore his breaking of the laws on immigration are a topic that can be delved into in the article. But his driving with a cancelled license is not in character. I think talking about that in our article raises an issue of WP:UNDUE. My personal feeling is that we should be apprising the reader of a well-reported encounter with immigration authorities after a traffic stop. I recommend this wording: "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed." Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Random break (Jose Antonio Vargas)
The addition wording is questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Later Vargas pleaded guilty to the charge of driving on a revoked license. This merges some of what Bus stop proposed, Hasteur proposed, and some of my own wording. We can use the Huff Post, NYT, ABS-CBN News, and Phil Star references and the content will be about a brief two sentence paragraph.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Hasteur's wording is a good start, I believe that Bus stop's compromise is better than nothing but leaves out a lot of what can be verified. Bus stop's version leaves out the license revocation, leaves out the arrest, leaves out the guilty plea. These are all factual.
 * How about this:"Vargas was arrested, questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and released in Wisconsin in October 2012 for driving with a revoked licence, which had been revoked shortly after the New York Times essay. Later Vargas pleaded guilty to the charge of driving on a revoked license."


 * Just because something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in an article. Bus stop (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re to Bus stop The mention of the New York Times essay (which is just a short while above) ties the issue of the driver's licence being cancelled because of the immigration status. Therefore I don't think we need to rub the readers nose in the issue again. I would strongly suggest that we drop the "Later Vargas pleaded guilty" because that's a mundane pleading and not really enough to warrant inclusion. The fact that the licence was revoked because of his self revelation is signficant. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You say "The fact that the license was revoked because of his self revelation is significant." No, it is relatively insignificant. I find this in a source: "After the traffic stop, he was taken to the Hennepin County jail, where he was questioned by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency known as ICE. He was released Friday afternoon with no immigration charges being filed. [paragraph break] 'Mr. Vargas was not arrested by ICE nor did the agency issue a detainer,' said Gillian Christensen, an agency spokeswoman." We should tell the reader that Vargas was in the custody of ICE but was released without immigration charges being filed. We should not be talking about the driver's license at all. We mention the traffic stop simply to satisfy the reader's curiosity as to what led up to Vargas' encounter with ICE. The issue of driving with a revoked driver's license is largely unrelated to the issue of being an illegal immigrant. My suggested wording: "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed." Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The X-Files (season 3), The X-Files (season 4), The X-Files (season 5), The X-Files (season 8), The X-Files (season 9)
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 working on this TV series' ratings and this user reverted all my edits, claiming stuff like "The ratings refs are totally screwed up and wrong" and "Someone was just being obnoxious with these ratings refs". This is disrespectful. I don't wanna start an edit war so I'm already reporting this situation. I found this very offensive because I'm not trolling and I spent nearly 3 hours working on those articles, therefore I was obviously careful. It's just lazy, you know, because I checked the sources again (seasons 3-5) and everything seems fine. Keep in mind the articles for seasons 1 and 2 use this newspaper's ratings as source and that doesn't seem to bother the user. The ratings references for seasons 8 and 9 were a little bit messy and once again the user reverted my edits. I was just simplifying, using a single source that was being used for a few episodes only.

I know this user will keep reverting my edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Not much, because the user did it in many articles. I only did one reversal.

How do you think we can help?

I hope you keep in mind all my work and the time I spent doing this. What I'm asking is very simple: make this user stop reverting edits like that in those articles. There's nothing wrong with my edits. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here asking this.

Opening comments by Gen. Quon
I was quite surprised that I got a notice about a "dispute". I would've responded to a message on my talk page...

First, I will apologize for being rude. I've dealt with a lot of unnecessary vandalism with ratings references, so I assumed this was another case. I didn't assume good faith, and this is my bad. When I mentioned the refs being screwed up, I was referring to their effect on the page List of The X-Files episodes. I'm sorry to say it, but the edits did actually screw up the page, but I left out some info, so again, my bad. OK, here's why I reverted them. The reference that you have added to the other pages is simply "'Nielsen Ratings'. USA Today (Gannett Company, Inc.). 1995. p. D3. Retrieved March 9, 2013." I assume that the refs link to a PDF with the ratings info. The problem with this is two fold. First, this reference is a conglomeration of newspaper articles, many of which are missing their titles. When I went through season 1 and 2's Nielsen Ratings, I had to use my college's database to find the title of many of them, as well as the date they were published (for instance, for many of these articles, the title is NOT merely "Nielsen Ratings). Also (like I just mentioned), the date of publication is important for these, as a lump reference is sloppy. The second problem with this is that it is utterly redundant. See the "U.S. viewers (millions)"? There is a ref right beside it that covers the entire season, with info taken directly from Brian Lowry's book Trust No One: The Official Guide to the X-Files. This is true from season 3-5. There is no reason to add a second citation for information we have already cited, other than overkill. The reason seasons 1 and 2 have unique ratings for each point is because the book that covers season 1 and 2 does not include viewership numbers, but rather household numbers. Thus, I had to go out and find the information. You claim that you were "simplifying [and] using a single source that was being used for a few episodes only", however, this actually complicates the page, because the page goes from 1 source for the ratings to about 5. I'm very sorry you spent three hours working on these, but we already had the information present in the article, and from a high-quality, independent third party source, so it was entirely redundant.

As for season 8. The way I originally had it, several of the ratings points were backed up by reliable newspaper sources (see the right hand column here), but the editor removed them and replaced them all with a single source to TV Tango (which I add for some of the other episodes that were missing the ratings). TV Tango is obvious a lesser reliable source (although still reliable, IMO, because of its founder/editor being reliable and trustworthy) than a newspaper article, so it makes more sense to include the newspaper articles before the website. The same is true for season 9's page; some higher quality sources (newspapers, books, etc.) were replaced by the (still reliable, just not as much) website. One reason why I was frustrated and acted quickly is because I've been working on this project for about a year now, and the edits goofed up the way the references for "List of The X-Files episodes" read; there were a few reference errors, but they've been fixed now.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there is no reason to re-cite the rating points for season 3-5, since they are already covered by book citations. To be fair, I went and added the book cite individually to all of season 3-5 episodes' spaces. Season 8 and 9 use a smattering of newspaper and book citations, as well as a website, but "cleaning them up" (in the manner that was done) is problematic, because it replaces the best references (books, newspapers) with lesser quality references. The highest-quality references should always be used in cases like this. I'm sorry if I came off as rash and mean. I just thought I was dealing with another vandal, as this major over-haul messed up several references in the before-mentioned List of The X-Files episodes article.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   02:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The X-Files (season 3), The X-Files (season 4), The X-Files (season 5), The X-Files (season 8), The X-Files (season 9) discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In the intro there is a dispute if the subject should be described as "nonpartisan think tank" vs. "neoconservative think tank." It original said nonpartisan but some user changed it and its evolved it to a persistent dispute that's been discussed previously and seemed closed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Started discussion on talk page and added more and better sources. Suggested leave "neoconservative" on the criticism section where it is currently and has always been.

How do you think we can help?

Picking which word is more accurate and best cited or rewording intro to reflect a NPOV.

Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Foundation for Defense of Democracies discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High
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 nominated an article for deletion because notability was not established. Other users vote to keep and claim that high schools are inherently notable and this is established consensus. I have repeatedly asked for clarification on where this consensus was reached, and why it is not reflected in guidelines. I have compiled a list of quotes from project pages that indicate my position is the accepted one: User:Atlantima/No Exceptions to Notability. The users voting Keep are attempting to reverse the burden of proof for notability, make discouraged arguments and are avoiding discussion of the actual article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried reminding the other users to address this specific article's topic and avoid making WP:ATA. I have asked for link to the alleged consensus. I have quoted policies and guidelines. All of this while remaining calm and open to compromise such as userfication.

How do you think we can help?

I want uninvolved parties to take a look at the applicable policies and guidelines and determine whether notability can be inherent, or whether it should be proven.

Opening comments by TerriersFan
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Necrothesp
I'm afraid I cannot understand why this has been brought to dispute resolution. It's not a content dispute. The proper place for discussion about an article which has been proposed for deletion is on the appropriate AfD page, where it is already being discussed. Attempts to circumvent this are not productive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sj
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Adolf Hitler
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 suspect that a synthesis of published material is occurring in the lead concerning a specific sentence. I have tried to engage with editors in asking for the sources of the information. Such sources have not been supplied as far as I can see. Opposing editors in the dispute outnumber me. Therefore I am asking for help as I am seeing an infringement of the core wiki policy of 'verfiability', which the four or five editors opposing my view, do not agree is occurring.

I specifically asked for the source for "systematically murdered" in relation to the 'eleven million' figure given. And I have also previously asked for the source attributing fifty million deaths to Hitler's "policies". 

Here is the disputed sentence: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Engaging in discussions on the talk page, I specifically asked for verfiable sources. None of the sources editors replied with state ALL these 'eleven million' deaths were the result of "systematic murder". And I have provided sources that contradict this. None of the sources opposing editors provided claim all fifty million deaths were the result of Hitler's policies, and I have provided sources that contradict this also.

How do you think we can help?

By venturing an opinion on 1. whether synthesis IS occurring and 2. whether the disputed aspects of the sentence have been verfiably sourced (i.e. can be verifiable).

[One user] has argued previously: "Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII". All involved seem to agree that [this] statement is not correct. Yet I have argued that the disputed sentence still infers what [was] falsely stated. No other reason is given for the cause of so many deaths other than Hitler's policies, so what else are we inviting the reader to understand? PLUS The alleged source for this we all agree is supposed to be R.J. Rummel's 'Death by Government'. But the legacy section summarises him thus: "...the Nazi regime was responsible for the... killing of an estimated 21 million civilians and POWs." etc. Even then it doesn't state the regime was responsible for ALL these 50 million deaths. The disputed intro sentence presumably reaches this 50 million figure by adding the total from this sentence "...29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theater of World War II." But again that is not being ascribed to "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies". Thus I am arguing that the disputed sentence is an incorrect synthesis that has no verifiable source. 

Comment about another editor removed. Please talk about article content, not about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Britmax
A quick remark between RL commitments. Stick to the sources, leave out the "systematic" as not all of them were or can be proved to be, and make it clear that the deaths resulted from the war that grew from the policies that Hitler advocated rather than blaming him for the deaths of fifty million people. I'm not a fan of his but it's more complicated than that. Finally keep any breakdown to two or three major examples or editors will start "listing". Britmax (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Diannaa
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The numbers at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53 are well sourced and very chilling. I was doing some research yesterday for a different article and one source points out that Hitler expected 30 million Russians to starve to death the first winter after the German invasion, and that is how they would get their Lebensraum (Longerich [2012], The Holocaust, page 181). People starved to death in the camps; that does not mean they were not systematically murdered, as their deaths were planned and intentional, whether they were starved or shot or gassed. Are we expected to analyse each death and say that a death counts because the person was gassed but Anne Frank does not count because she died of typhus? The numbers listed in this article have been checked and re-checked by myself and other editors who specialise in Nazi Germany and we believe that they're reasonable estimates based on reliable sources.

More sources: Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin says that the Nazis expected 30 million Russians to die of starvation during the first winter after the invasion of the Soviet Union. Longerich says the same (Snyder, p 416; Longerich, The Holocaust, p 181). Snyder (p 416) gives an estimate of 10 million systematically murdered in the area contained within this map. To that we must add the following victims who were killed outside the geographical area discussed in his book:
 * Aktion T4: 70,000 victims (Longerich, The Holocaust, page 140)
 * Jewish victims outside the geographical area covered in Bloodlands: 1,532,539 (there's a breakdown in my sandbox).

That's an additional 1.6 million victims for a total of 11.6 million. So this this information, collated from three different sources, gives us a similar number of systematically murdered as to what appears in the article. To draw information regarding the victims from a number of sources is not OR or synthesis in my opinion. In fact for important articles like this one it should be self-evident that we would draw on a number of different sources. Similarly the 50 million total war dead has been collated from a couple different sources and this number is also accurate imo.

Suggested new wording: Britmax has a good idea that the wording could be altered. Suggestion:

Opening comments by Kierzek
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. This really has been discussed at length by an assortment of regular and knowledgeable editors weighing in on the subject over time. Cites have been given in the discussion and through consensus, the final sentences have been placed into the article. As Kershaw simplify states (e.g.): Hitler made it clear he believed the Jews brought on the war so they should be "the first to feel the consequences". p. 694; thereafter, with the surrender on 9 May 1945, "Hitler's war was over." p. 963; "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead..." p. 969. "Hitler: A Biography" (2008). Kierzek (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Malljaja
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I first would like to note that the list of users invited for comment here should also include Kierzek. He has been a major contributor to the entry in question. Second, I do not see evidence for synthesis as alleged by the user requesting this DR. WP advises, "...synthesis of published material to advance a new position, [...] is original research," yet the statement in question does not advance a new position—as is expected from the text in the lead, the sentence in question summarises content given elsewhere (in the Legacy section of the entry). Third, as can be seen from the extensive history of the pertinent discussion on the talk page, the discussion on the issue of inclusion or exclusion of the sentence in question became very unproductive.

In the long discussion on the talk page, I have not seen any credible evidence emerging that would contradict the notion that Hitler's policies were responsible for the death of millions of people. It is amply supported by the literature written by scholars of this part of history (eg, by Ian Kershaw who is regarded very highly in the field). As far as I can tell, two issues concern the exact number of victims and the use of the word systematic. Dianna has provided an excellent summary identifying multiple sources (listed in detail on the talk page and included in the entry) that place the number of victims between 5–21 million people, so the 11 million figure represents a conservative estimate. Lastly, the word "systematic" is very commonly used to characterize the nature of the killing methods used (see eg, here), which included direct methods, such as systematic executions and death in gas chambers, and indirect methods intended to induce death by starvation and disease, such as forced labour and organized settlements into ghettos.

[A]s can be seen from the editing history of this entry, all editors who have made major recent contributions—including revising the Legacy section and the lead section in question—have used different sources and pursued many individual approaches aimed at improving the entry both in terms of sourced content and overall length. These efforts have independently converged on a consensus as represented in the current version. It thus represents the result of mutual peer review of different editors rather than a concerted effort of synthesis as alleged by this user. Malljaja (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This opening is over by 200 characters, but within the accepted overage as established by consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mystichumwipe
I do understand the frustration and the complaint: "we've done this". I really do. And yet ...still no-one has supplied what I have been asking for and which wiki policy requires as a basic compulsory requirement.

A previous problem that I would like us here to avoid, is that of personal opinion (presented as fact) being given as a reply to my request for a source.

BASIC and CORE Wiki policy is that articles are about verifiability NOT truth. So instead of us repeating over and over again what we as individual editors personally feel is 'true', it would finish the discussion once and for all if editors would provide a verifiable source that EXPLICITLY states exactly what the disputed sentence claims. If editors could do this, the conversation would be over. If editors still can't do that simple thing - and after so much discussion, - then I respectfully suggest that this is proof that the sentence is the result of unverifiable synthesis.

Finally, I have provided reliable, verifiable sources that contradict the sentence; sources which have been consistently ignored. I think it would help conclude this, if someone could address this aspect of the discussion also. As I am arguing that not only is the sentence the result of unverifiable synthesis, it is also contradicted by cited verifiable, reliable and authorative mainstream sources.

SUMMARY. The disputed sentence as I see it, infringes wiki policy in numerous different ways: 1.) it is unverifiable, 2.) as it is the result of synthesis so is therefore 3.) original research, and 4.) it can and has been contradicted so it can be argued is verifiably wrong.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nick-D
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. This has been discussed extensively (and very civilly) on the article's talk page, with many experienced editors with knowledge of this topic commenting and providing sources. The consensus is that the sentence is basically OK. This appears to be a case of one editor being unable to drop the stick and move on. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Paul Barlow
It will be very difficulty to meaningfully divide content from user conduct in this case. The issue arises precisely because of a single user's refusal to accept consensus and claims about "synthesis". It is generally accepted that simple calculations are not synthesis. Mystichumwipe then claims that we need a source that says all of these people were "systematically murdered" ("And what is the source for saying ALL these eleven million were "systematically murdered"? Didn't many hundreds of thousands/millions die of unintended hunger and disease as is often the case in concentration camps (e.g as happened in the US civil war camps, the UK/Boer war camps, and British Raj concentration camps)? Does anyone have a source for saying all these numbers were "systematically murdered".") This kind of argument is extremely common among Holocaust deniers and is generally given short shrift on Wikipedia. The reason is simple. Yes, people died of disease in concentration camps (people die of disease in any location), but in this case the context was a general project of using and eliminating people. Many people died of typhoid in camps, described by described by Michael Berenbaum as "immensely crowded prisons", which were instruments of "slow, passive murder." (see The Holocaust article). It is not the pratcice of historians to separate out those who were gassed or shot from those who died of disease (hence Anne Frank is a holocaust victim). This is because the project of "kill some; use some; weak die off" was part of the overall project. This all fully documented at the main Holocaust article. Of course there can never be a clear, definitive figure of the number of "systematically murdered" persons, but picking away at sources to constantly seek ambiguities is not a useful approach. Paul B (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Paul Siebert
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

If I understand Mystichumwipe correctly, his main objections are: (i) that no sources exist that say that 11 million people were systematically murdered according to Hitler's policy, and (ii) no sources exist that claim Hitler's policy lead to 50 million deaths. I think serious discussion of the thesis (i) is tantamount to the Holocaust denial: in addition to concentration camps, Hitler ordered to create death camps, where systematic murder of people was being perpetrated in industrial scale (in contrast to, e.g. Gulag, which was not an extermination camp), the extermination through labour program was also a systematic murder. I don't think it makes sense to develop a discussion in this direction. Regarding (ii), as Kierzek correctly noted, Kershaw says essentially the same, namely that Hitler was a major author of the war leading over 50 million deaths. Obviously, only politicians can be an author of a war, and they do that by conducting a certain policy. That Hitler's policy was supremacist and racially motivated is obvious, and that is consistent with what Kershaw writes. Therefore, the main idea of this author has been correctly transmitted in this sentence, so we cannot speak about any synthesis here. Mystichumwipe also argued that some sources question a systematic character of murders. If that is the case, it is not SYNTH, but due weight issue. In connection top that, I propose to separate these two issues, and finish with SYNTH first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by STFX1046190
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by TheTimesAreAChanging
Since Rummel doesn't explicitly link the war death toll with Hitler's racially supremacist ideology, the sentence does appear to be engaging in synthesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Woogie10w
I am no longer involved in this discussion--Woogie10w (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 Adolf Hitler discussion  Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that this is a topic where emotions can run high and interpersonal conflicts can flame up, so everybody here needs to take the following from the guide for participants at the top of this page seriously:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.

All discussion must be about article content, not user conduct. Comments about other users will be closed or removed, and if the problem persists you may be asked to leave the discussion. If you see such a comment do not respond. Leave it for one of the dispute resolution volunteers to deal with. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hitler himself won't be participating in this DRN, he's been baned. I don't know if it has anything to do with this dispute, but he seemed to very upset over some possible plagiarism at the Bohol article just before his ban. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to give the users who have not commented a day or two more and then proceed without them. If you are a user who has decided not to participate, please write "I won't be participating" as your statement, so I can tell you apart from those who haven't gotten the word. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, you are NOT facilitating useful or meaningful discussion of this issue. We will have no discussion if you persist in this attitude. Commentrs on the issue are comments on the claims and arguments made by an editor. No part of my comment was about user conduct so I expect you to undo your strike. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guide for participants at the top of this page is clear:


 * What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.


 * Your comments about article content were quite good, but you mixed them with comments about the behavior of another user. I would really like to have you rewrite your comments without the portion that violates the rules for this noticeboard (go ahead and delete the collapse and strike tags when you do), but I am not going to allow you to comment about other users. You may come to see the wisdom of this policy when we stop someone from trying to move the discussion away from article content and instead (perhaps unfairly) making it about your behavior.


 * Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand why we do things the way we do. A lot of people have put a lot of thought into how to best resolve disputes, and we have a lot of experience with what works and what does not work. You can claim, having never been through dispute resolution before, that our carefully-thought-out rules are "NOT facilitating useful or meaningful discussion of this issue", but our experience with hundreds of cases does not agree.


 * If you think that the rules should be changed, feel free to go to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard and make your case, but until the rules are changed, they apply to you just like anyone else. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Since this board attracts editors who have not been involved in the article discussion threads, could you please advise what these sources are. TFD (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Please be patient. We are still waiting for everyone to make an initial statement. There will be plenty of time to respond after that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion
Discussion is now open.

I am now opening this up for discussion. before we proceed, I want to clarify a few things.

First, yes we are serious about the following rule:

What this noticeboard is not:

'''It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.'''

You are free to discuss other editors on the article talk page as long as you don't violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA but not here.

Second, yes, we all know that a large number of editors have one opinion and a small minority another. There is no need to point this out. the minority freely admits it. If we determine that no policies such as WP:SYNTHESIS are being violated, then we have a consensus and that settles it. So please focus on the question of whether any policies are being violated. Another thing about a bunch of editors agreeing is that they usually are right about policy, but not always. The policies are there so that we don't end up with a hundred Neo-Nazis claiming consensus hundred Scientologists claiming consensus over our Dianetics article -- the article has to meet our neutrality and sourcing guidelines no matter what the consensus is.

Third, please slow down, make your comments short and to the point, and give others plenty of time to respond. We are here because this issue keeps coming up again and again on the article talk page, and we want to put it to bed forever (or at least until someone shows that there is new evidence that deserves another look -- unlikely with a historical figure).

Finally, look over your comments before hitting save and see if you can improve them. Closed DRN cases are often linked to, and the clearer your arguments are now, the less problems Wikipedia will have over this topic in the future. A calm, cool conversation with plenty of citations to reliable sources and discussion about the specific wording of various policies will win the day. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, can you please strike the bit about "a hundred Neo-Nazis claiming consensus"? I understand the point you're trying to make (eg, about the theoretic dangers of a local consensus of nutters emerging somewhere), but that really isn't an issue here, and it's actually pretty offensive to even suggest the involvement of 'neo-Nazis' as a possibility in this context. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point, and I apologize. I have replaced the example with another one which I hope won't offend anyone. If it does, I am going to try to offend Justin Bieber fans next.. :) Again, my apologies. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. You should always be trying to offend Bieber fans ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that the question before us is not what the numbers are or whether it is OK to add numbers from different sources, but rather what those sources are counting. It is also clear that the sources don't have to be in he lead, but they do need to be somewhere in the article.

Let's start with the first part of the disputed statement:

If you want to say "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." then every source you add up has to say exactly that. If a single source says the equivalent of "Hitler's policies resulted in..." you have to either exclude that source from the count or drop the "supremacist and racially motivated". So, for those of you who support "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in...", please list the sources you are counting up and quote the exact wording where you think each source says "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." Note that not everything in racist. On could argue that ordering Jews to be killed is clearly racist but ordering the handicapped to be killed is not (being handicapped is not a race).

If instead you want to say "Hitler's policies resulted in..." then you should have an easier time showing that all the sources you are adding together say exactly that. A source saying that it is counting Jews sent to death camps would qualify. A source saying that it is counting deaths in the ghettos or work camps also qualifies (death is a predictable result of putting people in those conditions). POWs shot trying to escape would not qualify, but Hitler ordering them all to be lined up and shot would.

If the source says it is counting German war dead, then we need to talk about whether "world war two resulted in" is more correct -- otherwise we are saying that every American death was the result of Roosevelt's policies.

At this point I don't need full citations or the actual numbers. We can check those later once we establish what we are measuring, and I doubt that anyone is making stuff up. I just want the wording in the sources that supports the "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." Then we can move on to the next part of he disputed statement. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * I would like to point out that we cannot say what a source says, we need to paraphrase any source and thus find a wording that is supported by a source— we need to be mindful of copyright issues, and especially with some sources being used frequently, fair use may no longer be applicable.
 * In regards to your specific question, Kershaw on page 476 of "Hitler: Nemesis" says (referring to General Plan East, Hitler's military plan for acquiring "Lebensraum" in eastern Europe),
 * He (Rolf-Heinz Höppner, an SS Sturmbannführer in charge of laying out plans for implementation of this plan) envisage deportations once the war was over 'out of German settlement space' of the undesirable sections of the population from the German Reich and of peoples from eastern and south-eastern Europe deemed racially unfit for Germanization. He specifically included the ultimate (endgültige) solution of the Jewish question, not just in Germany but in all states under German influence, in his suggestions.
 * This particular section of Kershaw's work may not be currently referenced in the entry (although the book is), but could be included in the 'Legacy" section because it provides evidence that Hitler's policies were racially motivated. Note that the "ultimate solution of the Jewish question" refers to the annihilation of Jewish people by various means, including execution-style killings, forced labour intended to cause death, and exposure to unsanitary conditions resulting in death by diseases or starvation. Malljaja (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kershaw (2008) pp. 148-149 discusses "Mein Kampf" where Hitler spelled out, rather clumsily, his plans for rebuilding Germany into a new society based on race, including genocide. It gave insight to his thinking; the mission was "to destroy 'Jewish Bolshevism'...at the same time provide the German people with 'living space' needed for the 'master race'. He held to these beliefs for the rest of his life. "Once head of state, Hitler's personalized 'world-view' would serve as 'guidelines for action' for policy-makers in all areas of the Third Reich." This is info. para-phased in the "Beer Hall Putsch" section where "Mein Kampf" is discussed (briefly, due to article byte size and due to the fact it has its own article which is linked). One could look to p. 150, as well, where Kershaw states, "Once the link with Bolshevism was made, Hitler had established his central and lasting vision of a titanic battle for supremacy, a racial struggle..." (this one page can be added, if need be) If one ties the above in with what I cited in my "opening statement section", it supports the lede. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that establishes that Kershaw clearly supports the "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." language. Does Kershaw also give us the eleven million figure? If so, that part of the disputed statement is verifiable and not a result of synthesis or original research.
 * If it seems that I am being pedantic, it is because I want the archive of this DRN case to be something you can link to any time this comes up in the future, rather than you having to have yet Another Long Discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kershaw says, "[Hitler was] the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving their lost ones ..." ("Nemesis" p. 841.) He does not break down this number into those murdered by genocide and those killed in the war; these exact numbers are sourced to, for example, The Holocaust Memorial Museum and Rummel. However, combining these sources is not advancing a new position, ie, synthesis; the field of scholarly historical research has long moved on from ascribing these deaths to Hitler's actions and policies to other pursuits, such as identifying the underlying reasons for the complete moral and political breakdown occurring during this period. That's why it will be difficult to find a current and authoritative source that would assign exact figures of victims to any one of Hitler's specific policies and actions. Again, the sentence in question does not advance a new position; it summarises well-sourced content reflecting extensive scholarly research. Malljaja (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking as the Devil's Advocate here, (I don't believe it is a new position or that any serious scholar questions it), WP:SYNTHESIS does not use the word "new" in the same sense I used it just now. That page makes it quite clear on what is and is not allowed:
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
 * Thus, combining as you describe above is not allowed: Either we find a source where the claim is explicitly stated or we cannot make the claim. I know that it is frustrating, not being able to put a claim in an article that anyone can see is true just by reading two sources, but that's not how Wikipedia works. The answer to this is to present A and B as separate properly-sourced statements. I have never seen a case where using a few more words didn't resolve the synthesis problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, as long as this is not in relation to wording and is strictly a calculation it is acceptable per: WP:CALC which states:


 * --Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the article's lead, so I don't think that such a literal reading of WP:SYNTHESIS is appropriate - leads are meant to summarise the main points raised in the article per WP:MOSINTRO, which inevitably leads to material being worked together a bit. A better question might be to ask why the material in the lead needs specific citations given that it's cited when it appears in the body of the article (I think). Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that Nick-D beat me to it, so I apologise for the repetition, as he and I are essentially making the same point: Guy, I appreciate your use of the devil's advocate position, but I do not think it applies the concept of synthesis correctly. The sentence in question is in the lead. As per its main function, the lead succinctly summarises content given elsewhere in the entry. Accordingly, were we to strictly apply the definition of synthesis to this section, as far as I can tell, much of the content in the lead in this and other entries probably would have to go. The Legacy section contains the content (which clearly delineates statements and sources) the lead sentence refers to, with detailed sources provided, and the lead sentence summarises this content; it does not reach a conclusion. This means that the rule, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion [emphasis mine] not explicitly stated by any of the sources." does not apply here. Now, one could argue that this lead sentence "slips in" an angle or position that is new or even contradicts content, but this is not the issue here—the broad consensus has been that this sentence appropriately reflects the content in the main body of the article. Malljaja (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the citations can be lower in the article and summarized in the lead, but they do need to be in the article somewhere.


 * The problem I have is that this particular "routine calculation" adds together one source that says that (some of) Hitler's policies were racist (clearly not every policy was racist; Hitler had policies that were aimed at reducing unemployment and building railroads and highways, for example) and another source that says that (some of) Hitler's policies resulted in 11 million dead. That doesn't add up to all of the dead being dead because of racist policies. Our article on The Holocaust says:


 * "Some scholars argue that the mass murder of the Romani and people with disabilities should be included in the definition, and some use the common noun "holocaust" to describe other Nazi mass murders, including those of Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, and homosexuals. Recent estimates based on figures obtained since the fall of the Soviet Union indicates some ten to eleven million civilians and prisoners of war were intentionally murdered by the Nazi regime."


 * Clearly some of those groups mentioned were murdered for reasons other than race. "people with disabilities" and "homosexuals" come in all races, including the Nazi-preferred "Aryan race".


 * Thus, claiming that all 11 million deaths were the result of racist policies is not a matter of "routine calculation", nor is it merely summarizing two separate sources. One source says that (some of) Hitler's policies were racist and killed (some number of) people and the other source says that (some of) Hitler's policies resulted in 11 million dead. Not only does no source say that the racist policies killed all of the 11 million, but it looks like the second source counts people with disabilities and homosexuals -- groups that include all races, including blond-haired blue-eyed Germans. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to refer to the deaths as just a result of policies alone then? The additonal peoples murdered were still a direct result of Hitler's policies.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The previous comments in this thread have clearly shown that 11 million people (including six million Jews) died as a direct result of Adolph Hitler's policies, and that this was purposeful. That's clearly sourced with no synthesis or original research needed. Likewise, it is well-sourced that Hitler started WWII and that WWII directly and indirectly caused roughly 50 million people to die.
 * The problematic portions of the current wording are the claim that all 11 million died because of racist policies, and possibly the term "murdered" instead of "killed". The latter isn't clearly wrong, and I wouldn't object very strongly if it stayed in, but our Murder article defines murder as "unlawful killing". If you accept the idea of a nation being allowed to make its own laws, then clearly it wasn't "unlawful". That's a big if, though; see Nuremberg Trials. Because of the POV problem, I would advise sidestepping the issues raised in Nuremberg Trials by using "killed".  Other than those two issues, I see no problem with the current statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "racist", strictly speaking, Hitler's antisemitism doesn't fit this definition, because both Germans and Jews belong to the same - Caucasian - race, so I see no more racism in killing of Jews by Germans than in killing of Tutsi by Hutu. However, Hitler's views are described as "racist" by many, if not an overwhelming majority of authors, and that is probably because of his obsession with the idea of Nazi invented "Aryan race". By the way, killing of homosexuals, mentally ill etc also fits this racist concept, because the goal was to improve the Aryan race by elimination of undesired individuals.
 * Regarding "murder" versus "killing", Wheatcroft argued that we can speak about murder, not just killings, "of at least 5 millions innocent people largely" (for details, see Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353), and, in contrast to, for example, Stalin's executions (when some attempts were made to maintain a visibility of legality), Hitler "was not concerned about making any pretence at legality. He was careful not to sign anything on this matter and was equally insistent on no documentation." (ibid)--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to start by thanking Guy for volunteering your time to try and solve this. I think you expressed and pinpointed the nature of this discussion very succinctly so I repeat it here "the question before us is not what the numbers are or whether it is OK to add numbers from different sources, but rather what those sources are counting."

To answer the initial opening arguments ( I number them for ease of reply):

1. There were many arguments repeating that most of the contributing editors previously were in agreement. As Guy has written, that is no argument for including a sentence which it is being argued infringes core wiki policy. So the 'numbers' argument I think we can all agree is refuted and need not be repeated.

2. Then there was an argument that the criticism of the disputed sentence was only from one editor (myself). This we can all agree is also a false argument, as there are four editors here agreeing the disputed sentence is problematical. Admittedly one of them later dropped out, but there was one other who has not participated (yet) in the discussion, which would bring the total to five editors.

3. Then there was the argument of Hitler's other "chilling" policies, with questions of whether Anne Frank was one of those systematically murdered, etc. May I again request that we should refrain from including our own opinions on this topic or on giving each other 'history lessons'. I again request we concentrate only on the specific aspects of the sentence that are under dispute and the sources for those specific points. Previously, editors have refused to discuss on the talk page as they said they do not want to waste their own time. I also do not want to waste anyone's time. So I again ask that we try to keep this JUST to the clearly specified aspects of the sentence that I have challenged. Otherwise this could go on indefinitely in discussions that are only slightly related to my challenge (as happened previously on the talk page). As an example,

I answer briefly that Snyder's book on pg 421 makes no mention at all of any deaths planned or otherwise, that I could see. Nor mentions "systematic murder". (Perhaps that page number was given incorrectly). Also, Longerich's The Holocaust, p 181 also DOES NOT say anyone was "systematically murdered" nor were planned to be so. He in fact writes that the 30 million projected lives at risk were expected to either die or "emigrate to Siberia". And in context, Churchill enforced a a blockade against Germany from 1939 that resulted in death by starvation and disease of many in mainland Europe and particularly in Poland. He also implemented racist and supremacist ideologies and policies in his execution of war (e.g. "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.") His policies resulted in the death by starvation of 3 - 5 million Indians in the Bengal famine of 1943 (Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill's Secret War, etc). Anyone is free to believe that Churchill's racist and supremacist ideologies and policies resulted in the "systematic murder" of all those people in Poland and Bengal, etc. But if they want to write that in the Churchill wiki page and to compile lists of numbers of those dead victims, they obviously have to provide a reliable source that states exactly what they write. The situation is exactly the same here on the Adolph Hitler page. So, as another editor has written: "keep any breakdown to two or three major examples or editors will start 'listing'."

4. It is NOT just the numbers that are being disputed in the sentence, as two editor appear to think.

The questions are i.) what are the sources for the numbers specified PLUS ii.) whether there is a synthesis of those numbers with uncited allegations of causation, responsibility and motivation for the deaths.

5. Two editors argued that this source: "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead..." supports the disputed sentence. But it DOES NOT state that Hitler and his "racist, supremacist policies" were responsible for over 50 million dead, but that the resulting war was. Also by stating Hitler was the "main author" infers he was only one "author" among others. So this actually argues against the disputed sentence and confers responsibility for all these deaths on ALL the "authors", not just Hitler. The article we are contributing to is about Adolf Hitler, NOT about the war (WW2).

That concludes my reply to the opening arguments.

6. No-one yet has answered my request to acknowledge and answer my sources that contradict the disputed sentence. Why is that?

Regarding the fifty million figure: "...how inadequate is our traditional way of understanding it [WW2]. It is not enough to to portray the war as a simple conflict between the Axis and the Allies over territory... Some of the most vicious fighting was not between the Axis and the Allies at all, but between local people who took the opportunity of the wider war to give vent to much older frustrations... Given that the Germans were only one ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts, it stands to reason that their defeat did not bring an end to the violence. In fact the traditional view that the war came to an end when Germany finally surrendered in May 1945 is entirely misleading: in reality their capitulation only brought to an end one aspect of the fighting. The related conflicts over race, nationality and politics continued for weeks, months and sometimes years afterwards." (Savage Continent by Keith Lowe, p.366. Publication Date: 5 April 2012. ISBN-13: 978-0670917464). Please note this part: "the Germans were only ONE ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts". Therefore we can NOT infer by cobbling together different sources that Hitler and his policies were responsible for all those deaths as the disputed intro sentence incorrectly does (AND does without providing a verifiable source).

Regarding the eleven million figure: What is the source for the eleven million systematically murdered? I am assuming this is a composite of six million Jews plus another five million. Is it? (If so see The Eichmann trial by Deborah Lipstadt. Pgs. 8, 9 and 10. Also The holocaust in American life by Prof. Peter Novick. Pg.225).

7. To avoid arguing over non-contested aspects, maybe it will help if I state that I accept that of course Hitler's policies were racist and supremacist; of course millions of people died in camps; of course he was one of the main authors of a war that resulted in more than fifty million deaths; of course some civilians were systematically killed. The problem is way the sentence adds all that together to form a new position to these uncontested aspects.

8. Finally, BEFORE I ever got involved, the original title for a discussion of the disputed numbers in this disputed sentence was given by one of the editors here as "DEATHS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HITLER". That I suspect has always been the perhaps unconscious motivation behind this disputed sentence.

I think we all agree that the numbers being used can NOT be attributed soley to Adolf Hitler, which is what the article should be about. I assume we agree that none of the cited sources we are using attributes all these deaths to Hitler alone, nor to his policies. The current unspecific citations used at present of "Yad Vashem, 2008" and "Holocaust Memorial Museum" I suggest are not adequate as a verifiable citation. I myself and one other editor see no need to have this sentence at all in the lead unless it is to try to attribute deaths to Hitler. The difficulty with this is that then we have a complex numbers problem that we then have to over-simplify. We already say in the lead: "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust." I suggest that is enough. The details can be in the appropriate sections. So we don't really need this disputed sentence in the lead, and it will likely always be an inaccurate over-simplification because of the complexity of the numbers issue.

For all the above reasons I suggest and request that we delete the sentence under discussion immediately and suggest we do not replace it with anything, if we do at all, until this discussion here is resolved and an agreeable solution is reached. What do you think, Guy?.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of jumping in and changing an article before a DRN case is closed. There is no hurry. Also, so far my discussion has been with a few editors who disagree with you, but that's just because they happened to post first. I have every intention of going over your preferred version with the same fine-tooth-comb. I think we are making progress, but it still remains to be seen whether we can resolve this or whether we have to pass it on to another of Wikipedia's dispute resolution steps. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mystichumwipe, outstanding claims need outstanding evidences. If you want to challenge the universally accepted fact that Nazi led Germans were a central players during the WWII, and that the WWII associated mass killings essentially ended in 1945, you need to present a source that says that more unambiguously (your source does not explicitly contest Kershaw or other sources named during this discussion). In addition, the source you quoted is an opinion of just one author, and it is not clear if this author reflects mainstream, minority or fringe views.


 * Regarding your other points, I think it would be ridiculous to blame Britain in starvation of the Poles (the sooner you abandon such ridiculous arguments the better, because that just makes your own position weaker). It is insufficient to concede that people were dying in German camps: in actuality, they were being systematically murdered there, especially in the extermination camps, which were established after Wannsee Conference. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To Paul. Huh!? I do not see how "central players" is responding to what I have written? (I numbered my points so editors could make it clear what they are replying to). I am making no such claims as you have written. I am disputing the claims made in this sentence under discussion. I gave an example of Churchill only to serve to clarify what I think is going on with how this sentence has been arrived at. Could you please read it again in that light (as of an example only). Regarding the starvation of Poles due to the British blockade. There was a British blockade. Poles did starve as a result. U.S. politicians did criticise Churchill for it at the time. I can provide you with a page number and source if you like. It's in 'Human Smoke' by Nicholson Baker. BUT this a distraction (my over-arching point); a side-show to my request again that we stick to the exact topics that require sources, and not get bogged down in only slightly related 'history lessons' to each other, that will require answering how individual editors view the history. This will merely distract from the main issues, has no relevance, and wastes time. Ermm, ironically exactly as is happening now. ;-) Remember, verifiability NOT truth.


 * Can someone provide a reliable authoritative source that says exactly what the disputed sentence says and which doesn't contradict other sources such as Lowe, Lipstadt, Prof. Novick, etc? Everything else is superfluous.

No-one yet has done that. Not on the talk page (where editors refused to engage by arguing I was a lone voice). And not yet here on this board as


 * I am arguing that the Kershaw quote does not say what the synthesis-sentence claims (as I have attempted to show) and Lowe, Lipstadt and Novick contradict aspects of the sentence. So I'm still arguing that until someone provides the required sources, the sentence remains unverifiable original research.  These were and still remain my points.


 * To Guy. I am only suggesting it's removal till a resolution has been arrived at. We have five editors - since I have been involved - who are agreeing it is problematical. And two of us think it is unnecessary and an inaccurate oversimplification. We can put it back again once it has been improved and/or something else agreed upon. My thinking is 'why keep it in, in its present form, if we are intent on an online encyclopedia that values verifiable accuracy'?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless anyone objects, I am going to arbitrarily declare that if three editors who are involved in this page (not DR volunteers) agree, we will change


 * "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II."


 * to


 * "Hitler's policies resulted in the death of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and contributed to the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II."


 * While we discuss this.


 * I know it isn't perfect, but I hope everyone can live with it for a short period.


 * Mystichumwipe makes one. Are there two others? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you had struck out all of Paul B's and part of my opening comments because they contained views on user conduct. I completely understand your reasoning. In the interest of fairness and a productive outcome of this discussion could you please apply the same principle to Mystimwipe's comments? Many of his comments focus on user conduct, not on sources (eg., among others: "Previously, editors have refused to discuss on the talk page as they said they do not want to waste their own time." and ˇeditors refused to engage by arguing I was a lone voice"). Thank you. Malljaja (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Sorry about not catching that earlier. --16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 2

 * Thanks Guy for your prompt attention to this.
 * Could you please first explain your rationale for your suggested change of this sentence? As I and several others have shown above, Hitler's policies were racially motivated and that the nature of the killings was systematic. The systematic conduct of the mass killings is a hallmark of the Holocaust and is supported by the sources given above and by many others.
 * Also, serious doubts have been raised by several editors (Kierzek, Nick-D, Paul Siebert, and myself) and one of the DR volunteers (Amadscientist) about the assertion that synthesis has occurred, and I am unsure what your views are now in light of these rebuttals. You have made a valid point about the use of "murder" versus "killing," and I do not see a problem changing this particular wording as you suggest. However, I do not agree with your suggested change that would eliminate "racially motivated" and "systematic" since these qualifiers you have acknowledged are properly sourced and provide important detail.
 * I concur with Paul Siebert's analysis that the term "racist" is very broadly used to describe the underlying rationales for many of the Nazi actions that were spurred or sanctioned by Hitler's policies; besides organised killings in death camps it included euthanasia [which was carried out extensively during the Nazi programme "Tötung lebensunwerten Lebens" ("killing of life not worth living"), which targeted people who were physically or mentally handicapped], and also experimentation on human subjects deemed racially inferior. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no preferred wording. That's for those who have been involved to decide. I did pick a wording above in response to repeated calls for changing the article while we discuss -- and picked a criteria (three editors support, no editors object), but that was just a minimum information version, not something I would support long-term. My only requirement is that whatever wording you pick is supported by a source without original research or synthesis. Which is what we are discussing now and have not agreed upon. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeated calls from whom? Aside from Mystimwipe, who has been aggressively arguing for removing or changing the wording in the lead sentence, no other editors have come forward advocating for such change. By contrast, several editors have argued for its retention, have provided sources, and provided counterarguments for the alleged occurrence of synthesis or original research. To say, "that's for those who have been involved to decide," does not address the issue—it postpones it. However, as stated above, I agree with your thoughts on changing "murders" to "killings." Malljaja (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeated calls from Mystimwipe. It looks like nobody else has signed up as agreeing that an immediate change to the article is needed, so it is a moot point and not thus worth discussing further. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Addendum: In regards to your continued concern over synthesis and OR, Dianna has done most of the research on the number of victims killed in the genocide and in the war. She has provided most of the relevant sources given in the lead (and the Legacy section) and will be able to elaborate on what exactly these sources are saying. She may be on a well-deserved weekend break, however, and not currently following this. Malljaja (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I will make sure everyone has plenty of time - there is no deadline for resolving this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Random thought from uninvolved user: I don't argue systematic killings, however were they racially motivated? Isn't there a possibility that, like most corrupt leaders, he'd do anything to keep his power? It was through Nazi propaganda that he came into power in the first place. At this point do we have a document from Hitler prooving his racism? MGray98 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's main centrepiece of most of his political speeches was that "the Jews" (and "Jewish Bolshevism") were responsible for Germany's misfortunes, including the loss of World War I and economic post-WWI calamities. He and other high-ranking Nazi officials couched this in terms of race, and the intended acquisition of "living space" for "Germanic" (or "Aryan") people was predicated on his view that these area were inhabited by "inferior races" (i.e., Poles and Slavs). Kershaw's two books "Hubris" and "Nemesis" contain ample probing and discussion of the origin of Hitler's views and how he used them to gain popular support and how they eventually got enshrined in policy. In short, there's strong evidence for scholarly consensus that Hitler's policies were racially motivated. Malljaja (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From what you just said, Hitler used "the Jews" to gain power. Was he really motivated because he believed his speechs? Is there proof of his racists views before he came to power? (I'm asking questions here, not arguing) MGray98 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The exact time when Hitler became an anti-Semite is subject of a current debate. Kershaw investigates and discusses this in "Hubris" and, using abundant caution, concludes that although there may have been some evidence for his antisemitism developing before WWI (mainly resting on testimony by a close friend of Hitler, August Kubizek), records of his speeches and of private conversations and also letters indicate that his antisemitism became more clearly articulated after WWI when he embarked on his political career. More recent studies (e.g., by Othmar Plöckinger, see here have confirmed this . Malljaja (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To add further confusion, almost everyone agrees that Hitler's definition of "race" was bogus, and a significant number of scholars today think that the way most people define "race" today is also bogus. Of course killing people over a bogus definition of race is still racism, but for Wikipedia to say that all eleven million were killed over racism requires a reliable source that says exactly that. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am now for the statement, "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic killing of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II." MGray98 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above series of arguments are interesting, but cannot be used to support any particular wording. Any claim we make must be explicitly stated in a reliable source or we cannot make the claim. If you want a particular wording, tell us what reliable source explicitly states it (not just something related), with a direct quote. If you can't find the quote and instead have to explain your reasoning, then what you are doing is almost certainly original research (WP:OR) and/or syntheses (WP:SYNTH). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They were not meant to be; I was just responding to this volunteer's queries. Malljaja (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the various sources Mystichumwipe claims support his position, but his claim that Heinz Peter Longerich argues that there weren't any plans for the systematic murder of Jews is, to be frank, not at all true. See Longerich's expert report to the Irving vs Lipstadt trial for instance, in which he concludes that "there is clear evidence that he [Hitler] was deeply involved in the anti-Jewish policy during the war, particularly when it reached a murderous stage" and "It can be ruled out that the massive preparations for the systematic murder of European Jews in extermination camps in Poland, undertaken in Spring and Summer of 1942, were taken without his consent or his [Hitler's] knowledge". Note also that an entire section of the report is devoted to the topic of Hitler's role in starting the "Systematic murder of European Jewry": Given that Longerich appears to have been deliberately misrepresented here, I'm assuming that the rest of Mystichumwipe's claims to references are also unreliable, and he's not actually acting in good faith.

Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen similar instances of this on the Hitler talk page. I think this goes to the heart of this dispute—it's not really a dispute over sources or alleged synthesis or OR, it's, as Paul B noted in his (struck-out) opening remarks, about user conduct. Namely one user trying to go against consensus, and having failed at that on the relevant talk page, to drag out the discussion here by getting other editors unfamiliar with the topic (one that takes a good deal more time than an afternoon to read up on) involved to see if he can find someone to agree with him/her. This discussion and the extended discussion on the talk page have shown ample evidence of this (here, for example, his/her attempt here to characterise Churchill's policies as "racist" and "supremacist" and "result[ing] in death by starvation and disease of many in mainland Europe and particularly in Poland," an assertion is unsourced and violates synthesis and OR, the very principles he/she alleges have been violated by the inclusion of the lead sentence in question). Reading this, I came away with the impression that the overall object is here to portray an enemy of Churchill, ie, Hitler, as relatively more benign or at least on par with the British prime minister at the time. This clearly falls into the category of synthesis.
 * Seeing that this user and other editors are so far apart both in terms of views on the issue and use of verifiable sources and general conduct, I do not really see a productive outcome of this. Given that this issue as created an inordinate drain of personal resources, ie, time and energy, this may more properly belong in an ANI. Malljaja (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree - the comments in regards to Churchill are totally wrong and reflect a fringe viewpoint (there was mass starvation in Poland due to the Nazi occupation policies, and not because Churchill was racist towards Poles - see Commission for Polish Relief for a discussion of this issue). Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true that the claim that Longerich does not support the claim of systematic killing is not supported by the sources given here by you and others, but unless someone is trying to use a specific citation by Longerich to support removing or adding specific wording from the lead of this article, it is outside of the scope of the dispute resolution noticeboard. It is our goal to focus on the content of one small part of one particular article and to leave all other issues to be discussed on the article talk page (or on WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U if there is a behavioral issue to be addressed after the content dispute is resolved.) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, with all respect it's not actually possible to separate the editor conduct issue here from the content issues, and the content aspects of this matter are not going to be resolved in a sensible way by going down the current path

given that the instigator is acting in bad faith - for instance, why have you hatted my comment on what Mystichumwipe's misrepresentation of Longerich means for the rest of the sources he's offered? Someone who clearly misrepresents one source can't be assumed to be correctly representing the other sources, and hence we can't have a productive source-based discussion (which in turn means that this process is a waste of time).


 * Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nick-D, This is your last warning. The next time you break the rules of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard I am going to ask you to leave this conversation. You are free to disagree with the policy, or with my enforcement of it, but not here. Post any such complaints at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, I must agree with Nick-D. As with mediation in the real world, factors in a case in voluntary review should not be arbitrarily thrown out when they have a direct bearing on points being presented; and have an affect on the decision making process. Kierzek (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kierzek,I realize that you disagree with DRN policy, and I invite you to bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would also note, and thank you for, the fact that you have not violated the policy even though you disagree with it. That was and is the right thing to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that simple arythmetic is not original synthesis. Take 6 million killed Jews, 5 million killed Soviet POWs and you're already near the figure, add also 15 million killed Soviet civilians.--Anixx1 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So I can add together worldwide highway fatalities in 2000 and fatalities from the Black Death in the middle ages and call the total "people murdered by Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies"? After all, all I am doing is simple arithmetic, right? Or would you prefer that each of the sources we add up say that what they are counting is people murdered by Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies? According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, you need to [A] make sure that each source you add together clearly states what is being counted, [B] make sure that they are counting the same thing, and [C] make sure that what the Wikipedia page says is being counted matches. Do that, and getting a total by simple arithmetic is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Longerich quote I claim does not use the wording "systematic murder". The Novich quote that I cited argues against the eleven million figure. Not that there weren't any plans for the systematic murder of Jews. My original point on talk and again here was that he disputes the 11 million figure, as does Lipstadt. And I have asked and am still asking what is the source for the "eleven million" figure and for saying this eleven million were "systematically murdered". If someone has supplied that, I have missed it. If I have missed it, can someone repeat that for me please.
 * The Lowe quote I provided does not represent a fringe view, as Professor Scheck has also written on this topic. E.g. "Croatia left one of the bloodiest legacies of Germany's satellites: without pressure from Germany the Croat regime established its own death camps and murdered thousands of Serbs and Jews. Serbia had strong partisan movements, one communist and one monarchist-conservative. The partisans managed to liberate their country even before the Red Army arrived, but there was much infighting. The fact that more people in Yugoslavia died as a result of infighting than as a result of German or Italian brutality (which took place on a considerable scale) shows that a Yugoslav civil war was taking place already during World War II."
 * Another quote, I previously supplied was: “It sufficed for the purposes of the Nuremberg trial to assume that the outbreak of war, and all its exertions, were purely due to Hitler’s aggression. But that is too simple and shallow an explanation. The last thing that Hitler wanted to produce was another great war. “ -Sir Basil Lidell Hart, History of the Second World War.  Pg 6. Published by Konecky & Konecky; 1st edition (May 18, 2007).
 * I provide these quotes to show that it is an inaccurate oversimplification to attempt to add up death tolls from various sources and then attribute them to Hitler and his racist and supremacist policies.
 * I also think we need to consider what have been called the 'functionalist' versus the 'intentionalist' ways of understanding Hitler's motivations and intentions. I feel this article needs to avoid being perceived to be biased in favour of any one of these approaches. But... Over and above all that...
 * Q1. remains, what is the source for "eleven million" and for them all being "systematically murdered"?
 * Q2. remains what is the source for saying Hitler's "supremacist and racially motivated policies ...caused an estimated 50 million deaths"  --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that my Churchill assertion was unsourced and violates synthesis and OR, the very principles alleged to have been violated in the lead sentence. This was exactly my point. We would not allow such to happen on the Churchill wiki page, (the collecting together of separate facts from varied sources to construct a sentence that forms a new and different position to that stated in any of the original sources). I only used this as an example to show what I am arguing we are allowing on the Hitler page. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mystichumwipe, could you rewrite the above without the bits that are responses to other editors improperly commenting about other editors? I am trying to get everyone to follow the rules here, and responding just encourages responses to your response. Make sure you keep in the parts that address article content and sources. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. Is it better now? Do you want meto rewrite other points that you have disallowed also? I will do that if you think it will help.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Much better. Thanks! One small change; I would like the first paragraph to not say "I am not saying..." and "I have not written...". This just tempts others to reply "yes you are!" an "Yes you did!", and suddenly we are talking about users instead of content again. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Britmax which as yet have not been commented upon: "Stick to the sources, leave out the 'systematic' as not all of them were or can be proved to be, and make it clear that the deaths resulted from the war that grew from the policies that Hitler advocated rather than blaming him for the deaths of fifty million people. ...Its more complicated than that."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 3
If the issue is the mention of Racism and murder for the total sum then just call it from "policies" that caused "deaths". This shouldn't be that difficult unless I am missing something major here. Some editors want accuracy and they are correct in asking for that but other editors are not wrong in wanting to summarize totla amounts of people who suffered and died by the policies that were set in place by Adolf Hitler. I have to agree with the latter and suggest that we just drop the mention or racsim and maybe replace it with "bigoted" as the term would indeed be verifiable and replace the word "murder" with "deaths". This seems to be encyclopedic in value and is not down grading or diminishing anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution. Does anyone have a good reason why we shouldn't do this? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (Temporarily breaking commitment to not particpate; sorry) There were a large number of trials which established that these killings were in fact murders, so it shouldn't be considered a controversial statement (see, for instance, pages 759-760 of Richard J. Evans' book The Third Reich at War in which he repeatedly uses the term 'murder' when summarising the results of Nazi rule of Germany and Europe; this book forms part of a trilogy which is often identified as the current standard work on the history of Nazi Germany). Ian Kershaw (2000b, p. 841) also characterizes the non-war deaths Hitler was responsible for as a "genocide", which is obviously murder, in his biography of Hitler (also often considered the current standard work on this topic). Note that there's a controversial aspect to only using 'deaths' given that many fringe far right historians argue that the bulk of the deaths they concede as having occurred (which they greatly minimize) were essentially accidental and not the result of deliberate policies (a view dismissed by mainstream historians). I agree on removing 'racist' as its rather simplistic though. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Which, of course, brings us right back to the core question: is there a reliable source that says there were 11 million murders, or is WP:SYNTHESIS being used to add together the numbers of two sources, one of which does not specify whether or not all the deaths it is counting are murders?


 * If a fringe far right historians comes by and argues that the bulk of the 11 million deaths were accidental, I am going to ask them the same question I am asking you; where are the sources that support that?


 * There is another problem with your argument above. You equate "the result of deliberate policies" with "murder", but they are not the same thing. For example, many German soldiers and even a couple of cities full of Japanese civilians were killed as the result of deliberate policies by FDR. Likewise, recent deaths by drone strikes are the result of deliberate policies by Bush and Obama. If your sources say "the result of deliberate policies". use that wording or a close paraphrase.


 * Our article on Murder starts with "Murder is the unlawful killing..." It is by no means clear that Hitler's policies were illegal in Nazi Germany. I am aware of the argument that Nazi attempts to hide the killing prove that it was illegal, but the Obama administration has simultaneously attempted to hide various drone killings and asserted that drone killings are legal. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted, the sources I've noted above explicitly use the words 'murder' and 'genocide' in relation to the deaths Hitler's policies lead to, which was the specific topic for which views were being sought in this sub-thread - I'm not sure why we suddenly need to also lump in the 11 million figure into this discussion (for the record, these sources don't provide this figure and I concur it needs a specific references somewhere within the article or a figure with a specific reference inserted in its place) or have some kind of discussion over whether these deaths were unlawful; to characterise the deaths as being the result of 'murder' is supported by the references and not controversial given my understanding of the historiography of this era. I'm assuming that your comparisons of FDR and Obama to Hitler and suggestion that what Hitler is responsible for might not be illegal are a debating tactic and don't reflect your actual views. However, they're pretty extraordinary things to suggest in this context given the baggage which is attached to such viewpoints and the fact that this is meant to be a source-based discussion (eg, what non-extreme sources compare Obama's policies to Hitler's for instance?). Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not unreasonable to ask that the same verifiability criteria be used in the Bush/Obama articles and the Hitler article. That sort of "comparing" is perfectly legitimate. I probably should have used F.D.R. as an example instead -- did he murder 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We don't change our verifiability policy just because the page is about Hitler. If you have a reliable source that says that Hitler murdered X number of people, use that wording and that number. The comparison above is for use when you try to hang "murder" on a source that doesn't say that or try to pick a number that isn't in the sources that do use the word "murder". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, I genuinely don't get what you're working towards here - the specific question asked by Amadscientist at the start of this thread was whether 'murder' and 'racism' should be dropped, and I've provided a response with supporting references for the use of 'murder' (eg, two of the standard works on this topic use 'murder' and other words to that effect when summarizing the results of Hitler's policies); if other editors are aware of sources which provide differing views on the suitability of using these words that can provide a basis for discussion. I can dig up references to support an argument that 'racist' isn't appropriate if needed (the obvious reason though is that many thousands of Hitler's political opponents (including in resistance movements in occupied countries) were murdered as a result of policies which weren't directly motivated by racism). An approach where one of the volunteers asks editors to respond to a specific question about specific wording and another of the volunteers endorses this approach but then demands that a different topic be addressed in the thread once one of the involved editors provide a response simply isn't workable. I think that I'll bow out again - I regret sticking my head back. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Q.was "If the issue is the mention of Racism and murder for the total sum then just call it from "policies" that caused "deaths". This shouldn't be that difficult unless I am missing something major here. I suggest that we just drop the mention or racsim and maybe replace it with "bigoted" as the term would indeed be verifiable and replace the word "murder" with "deaths". Does anyone have a good reason why we shouldn't do this?

Yes I do. I think Amadscientist is missing something major. Viz. that what is being attempted to be simplified into one sentence is a way more complex and nuanced topic than he (and the sentence) conveys (as myself, Britamx, Timestheyareachanging, STFX1046190 and even Woogie10w have argued).

Quick answer.: Mention of Racism and murder is not the problem. This proposed slightly amended sentence would STILL remain an innaccurate imprecise oversimplification via synthesis from beginning to end. Because the numbers are and have been disputed. Because the causation and responsibilty for the deaths would remain unsourced so would still remain a result of unverifiable sythnthesis. Because WE DON'T EVEN NEED THIS SENTENCE as the details can be in the appropriate sections, and we are already saying in the lead that Hitler was at the centre of WW2, the holocaust, etc., etc.

Long answer. 1. Mention of Racism and murder is not the problem. The whole sentence is about attributing deaths to Hitler, as was made clear by the title of a previous discussion. Even in that discussion, the the numbers of deaths that could be attributed to Hitler were disputed. The article is about Hitler not about WW2. So we should not and can not fairly attribute ALL the total of deaths in WW2 to him. Its way more complex than that, as I and Britamax maintain, and as Liddel-Hart, Keith Lowe, Professor Scheck, A.J. Taylor and other historians have stated. 2. The problem with this solution still remains that a synthesis is being made to attribute all deaths in WW2 to Hitler and a new unsourced word 'bigoted' is being used. 3. ALL the deaths from starvation are being applied to Hitler and his "policies" with a description of "systematic" and "murder". And then a disputed figure of 11 million is being slapped in there with no verifiable source. As I have shown Hitler was only one of the main authors of the war, and that is according to the cited source Kershaw. (I.e. the sentence is contradicted by the very source it is citing). The deaths from starvation in Poland were ALSO a direct result of the policies of Churchill, as I have demonstrated with as yet unconstested sources. So ALL the starvation deaths can NOT be attributed just to Hitler's policies, racist, bigoted or otherwise, plus we have no verifiable source stating that they can be. YES, Hitler had racist policies, there is no argument abou that. But there is a difference of opinion whether all the deaths from his racist policies can be ascribed to an intended and systematic plan (intentionalism) or were an unintended outcome of the developement of war (functionalism). The sentence should not push a point of view on this difference, which it does at present PLUS does so without even the basic required verifiable sources to back it up. I will provide a suggestion of a replacement sentence using verifiable sources later (I also have limied time at my disposal;). I agree this much with those arrayed against me, this is a complex topic and so it requires editors well versed in the topic who have an understanding of the broader issues and context (i.e. not just are well-versed in Hitler's policies and actions alone in isolation from the actions of other players/leaders)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A question was asked "why we need to lump in the 11 million figure with use of the words 'murder' and 'genocide' in relation to the deaths Hitler's policies lead to". The obvious answer is because that is precisely the figure referred to in the disputed sentence with the words 'murder' and 'systematic'.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Quotes from The holocaust in American life by Peter Novick disputing the eleven million figure:
 * 1.) "For those including myself who value precision of expression,... 'eleven' [million], even apart from being invented and arbitrary, is unacceptably mushy." Page 225
 * 2.) "The eleven million figure - or rather the notion of five million... added to six million jews - makes no historical sense" Page 215 --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Quotes from The Eichmann trial by Deborah Lipstadt (Pg.8) disputing the eleven million figure:
 * "Wisenthal decided to broaden the poulation of victims - even though it meant falsifying history. He began to speak of eleven million victims: six million jews and five million non-jews. Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer immediately recognised that this number made no historical sense."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick-D lays out the argument well and the historians cited are certainly held in high regard. I am not going to write pages 549-550 from the footnotes of Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust by Robert N. Rosen, but it gives a nice quick overview for numbers. Now, I would agree that there is a point that all 50 million are not "attributed just to Hitler's policies"; but certainly millions are directly and in-directly; and he should not be let off the hook for that. As I stated in the past, Hitler was the driving force behind the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy aimed ultimately at conquest. The point is that certainly the unsettled aftermath of World War I, along with the Great Depression and other factors helped create the environment at hand in Sept. 1939, but Nazi Germany, led by Hitler and his minions, made the decision to invade Poland in Sept. 1939, which was the overt act which started the Second World War in Europe. Those same policies led to the Holocaust.


 * I would put forth the following: Hitler's policies ultimately resulted directly and indirectly in the death of millions of Jews and non-Jews (footnote added here as to disputed numbers with cites, if need be). Said policies also contributed to the estimated total of 50 million who died during World War II. And this is open to tweaking, ofcourse. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another tweaking suggested to me: Hitler's racially motivated policies ultimately resulted directly in the death of more than six millions Jews and non-Jews. His policies also contributed directly and indirectly to the estimated total of 50 million people who died during World War II. Kierzek (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted a suggested wording last night but put it in the wrong place. I am going to modify it slightly after reviewing some of the above material. My suggested wording now is "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of at least eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews. An estimated 50 million people lost their lives during World War II." The following sources show that the figure of eleven million is the bare minimum, and if anything is too low.
 * Snyder gives a figure of ten million dead in the geographic area covered by his book, which does not include deaths in Western Europe (Snyder, Bloodlands, page 416)
 * Rummel gives a figure of 16.3 million killed via genocide.

Rummel's chart is the only place I have found so far that collects all the information together into one place, so here's a collection of other sources that give a breakdown of the deaths:
 * Jews: 6 million (Snyder, Bloodlands, p 380 says 5.4 million in the area covered by his book; Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, gives 5.6 to 5.9 million; Shirer, page 978 gives 5.7 million; Evans, The Third Reich at War, p 315 quotes Eichmann as saying 6 million. Evans says a bare minimum of 5.5 million, also on page 315)
 * Soviet POWs: 3 million were intentionally starved to death (Snyder, Bloodlands, p 416; Shirer, page 952)
 * Executions at Katyn: (21,892 - Snyder, Bloodlands, p 415; 20,000 - Evans, The Third Reich at War. p 44))
 * Non-Jewish Polish civilians: 1.8 to 2 million (Piotrowski, 2005; USHMM)
 * Non-Jewish Soviet civilians: at least 1.3 million (Snyder, Bloodlands, p 415-416, says 300,000+ were shot during reprisals in Belarus and 1 million were intentionally starved during the siege of Leningrad alone. USHMM says "millions")
 * Aktion T4: 70,000 (Longerich, The Holocaust, p 141; Evans, The Third Reich at War, p 100)
 * Romani: 150,000+ (Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, p 565 says 200,000; Longerich, The Holocaust, says 150,000 to 211,000)

Total: 11.8 to 12.6 million people, based on multiple estimates drawn from multiple reliable sources. -- Dianna (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Now we are getting somewhere! That looks like a reliable source that adds up the numbers, thus avoiding the WP:SYNTHESIS problems that I have been talking about. So, what does Rummel call the total? Murder?, killing? death? I have no opinion on what the wording should be other than to make sure that it is supported by the sources, so Rummel's wording and Rummel's numbers are fine with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, outstanding and rigorous work as always; I agree with your suggested wording. The 50 million war dead in the second sentence can be sourced to Kershaw (Nemesis, p. 841)(though I don't think that any of the above sources need to be given in the lead). Malljaja (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work, Diannaa. I will say the first sentence is okay with me; I do like: "His policies also contributed directly and indirectly to the estimated total of 50 million people who died during World War II"; for the second sentence better but will go with consensus. Kierzek (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey. I think the 50 million war dead is only applicable to the European Theatre of operations, per our research of May 2012, so we may want to tweek that wording. I would like to point out that sourcing to Longerich (2010), Snyder (2010), and Evans (2008) takes advantage of the latest information – facts and sources that were still behind the Iron Curtain at the time of the Eichmann trial. Looking at Rummel's chart, he uses the terminology "institutional killings", and cites a figure of 11.28 million, which includes (of all races and nationalities) forced labour, forced euthanasia, intentional starvation of prisoners of war, and concentration camp deaths. He gives a total for the "democide", which he defines as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder", as 19.3 million. Most of these additional deaths took place in Poland and the Soviet Union. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC) The chart is tricky to read; the totals for each grouping are at the top of that group. The first category is "genocide"; he tallies 16.3 million people in this group. The second category is "institutional killings", 11.28 million (some of which are included in the "genocide" tally). The third group is "democide in occupied Europe"; this includes people in the first two categories (which overlap with each other). The fourth group is "European war dead" (European soldiers; does not include American/Canadian/Australian soldiers killed in European theatre); this group comprises 28.7 million people. -- Dianna (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources. But we have had these before. So, now it is my turn to complain "we've already done this." As Britmax wrote in a previous discussion: "This is an article on Adolf Hitler, it is not titled 'an analysis of the statistics of victims of World War Two'." (I.e. are we really moving forward with this list?). Even with this arithmetic, we must agree that this demonstrates that the  sentence previously was unsourced, unverified, and apparently inaccurate, as alleged.  And using this new arithemetic the question STILL remains unanswered: what is the source for saying that ALL these 11.8 to 12.6 million deaths were the result of Hitler's racist and/or supremacist policies? and "systematic murder"?
 * Also I would appreciate a response to some/any of my points which have gone unanswered/unacknowledged. For example a.) the sources demonstrating Churchill's indirect and direct responsibility for some of the percentage of war dead from starvation. b.) The contradicting sources demonstrating that the numbers of dead were not ONLY the direct or indirect result of Hitler's policies but were also due to pre-existing internecine political and racial conflicts, e.g. Yugoslavia, Croatia, Greece, etc. c.) we are already saying Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.
 * My feeling still remains that this sentence is driven by a motive as was expressed here: "all 50 million are not attributed just to Hitler's policies but certainly millions are directly and in-directly, he should not be let off the hook for that". The wording "let of the hook" seems an odd and inappropriate motivation and criteria for a neutral, factual encyclopedia. And "directly or indirectly" seems to me to be stating the obvious and would clearly ALSO apply to ALL the key players, incl. Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Mussoline, etc. Do editors feel we should have such a statement in the lead of the wiki pages of the other main authors of the war? If not why not?
 * BIGGER QUESTION: What is the motive behind this synthesis sentence? Is it to convey the facts neutrally? or are are we trying to tell the reader something?--Mystichumwipe ([[User

talk:Mystichumwipe|talk]]) 11:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rummel is used in the article as a source for these facts. It's there right now, and it's been there since May 2012. Rummel's tally tells us there were 11.28 million "institutional killings", which includes (of all races and nationalities) forced labour, forced euthanasia, intentional starvation of prisoners of war, and concentration camp deaths. The other list of sources is not synthesis, but a way of verifying that Rummel's figures are accurate, since we do not want to rely on a sole source for such an important piece of information. These other sources confirm that Rummel's numbers are indeed accurate, and may in fact be a bit too low. I would be interested in hearing your comments on my current suggested wording, which is "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of at least eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews. An estimated 50 million people lost their lives during World War II." -- Dianna (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy or any other volunteer who's following this, could you please review Mystichumwipe's above comment for observations on user conduct. Sentences such as, for example, "my feeling still remains that this sentence is driven by a motive as was expressed here," and, "BIGGER QUESTION: What is the motive behind this synthesis sentence?" clearly comment on or question user conduct rather than discuss sources. As I and others have noted, it is difficult to separate discussion of sources and user conduct in this DR; however, since you have made it very clear that you only permit comments on sources on this page, I would like to ask you to apply this rule to everyone. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 4
I know Rummel is already used. We are here discussing what is the verifiable source for this "the systematic murder of eleven million people".

If we must have a sentence attributing deaths to Hitler, here is my suggestion with the appropriate sources. You will see I am using Rummel’s figures for consistency: "Hitler is considered the principle antagonist for the outbreak of World War II which left over fifty million dead*. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity, Aryan superiority combined with his anti-semitic policies resulted in the deaths of over five million Jews*."
 * 1. (Kershaw Hitler: Nemesis, p. 841.)
 * 2. (Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Pg 10, Table1.5,

Regarding the inherent difficulty of dividing up responsibility for deaths, in Raul Hilberg's book ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’, he estimates 5.1 million Jews died during the Holocaust of whom "over 800,000" died from "Ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 were killed in "Open-air shootings"; and "up to 2,900,000" perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll in Poland at "up to 3,000,000".

So if we accept Rummel as our source for democide figures then we have to accept this from him also: ''“…food blockades that cause the indiscriminate death of civilians is democide, as was the largely British Blockade of the Central Powers during and after WWI. As Article 14 to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions affirms, “starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.”'' --Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Pg 40

Put that together with the quotes from the British General Staff’s report (Churchill inspired ) and the letter of Hoover regarding Churchill’s democidal starvation policy against Poland and you can see how complex and nuanced this topic of attributing responsibility for wartime deaths is in reality. Which is why I advocate not having this sentence, as we already have the sentence "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust" We instead detail these subtleties in the article, with the appropriate sources previously cited here in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe   (talk • contribs)  15:12, 13 March 2013  (UTC)


 * I see several issues with your suggested sentence, but before going into detail, I first would like to suggest a wording that makes sense in terms of diction and meaning. Please note that this does not mean that I agree with your suggested changes; I just want to get my head around what you're trying to express here. Here's my suggested wording based on my reading of your sentences: "Hitler is considered the principal player (or perpetrator) responsible for the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead*. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority along with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of over five million Jews*." Is this what you want to say here? Malljaja (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't be replying to the properly stricken comments above, near the end of "Discussion 3". As to the above suggested sentences, I would say that the first sentence would need to be changed to point out we are talking only about the war in Europe (including the West and Ost fronts). In the second sentence I would take out: "In the execution of that war"; while it is true that the majority of the killing and deaths occurred during that time, the ideology and even the beginning of those policies were in place before that timeframe for Hitler and his minions. Kierzek (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Mystichumwipe: "Antagonist" is definitely the wrong word; I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't agree with using figures from Hilberg's book as it is dated 1960 (revised 1985); we have much more up-to-date sources, such as Evans and Longerich. How about this wording: "Hitler's political programme led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in the European theatre of the war. His ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the first sentence, what about: "Hitler's aggressive political programme (or foreign policy* --too vague?*) led to the outbreak of the European theatre of World War II, which left over fifty million dead." Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "Hitler's political programme and war of aggression led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in the European Theatre." -- Dianna (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the alternative version suggested by Mystichumwipe uses some wrong word choices. I've attempted to write a cleaner copy of his suggested wording, but he hasn't responded yet. And I'm not altogether sure whether this alternative wording is really the way to go. The alternative phrasings are somewhat wordier than the current sentence. It the object is to indicate that the 50 million war deaths are those in the European theatre only, one could simplify this to, "Hitler's policies and strategy of aggression led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in Europe alone." (I've changed "war of aggression" to "strategy of aggression," because "war" is a form of aggression.) In regards to the second sentence, I believe that "racially motivated" more appropriately describes the intent of Hitler's policies than "Aryan superiority" and "racial purity" since the latter two sound more like the vernacular the Nazis themselves used to describe their programme objectives. I'm happy to follow consensus on this, but I'd caution against phrasing that has the potential to attract additional concerns further down the road. Malljaja (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you just say "Hitler started World War II, which left over fifty million dead in Europe alone"? Is there any controversy over who stated WWII in Europe? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stalin invaded Poland at the same time to reclaim land lost in a previous war, since both shared a border with Poland, it resembled more of a regional border dispute. GB and France declared war Germany but not the USSR, France came to the aid of their Polish ally by bombing an aspirin factory or something, GB helped with the blockade, the USSR had been at war, kinda, with Japan 6 month previous, who had been at war with China for years, not to mention Italians in Africa. Did one person really start ww2? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4.1. I agree that all which Darkstar1st has written is correct. Plus there was the 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania and resulting invasion of Poland/reclaiming of Lithuanian territories(*take your pick) by Lithuania also in 1939, as a continuation of the Polish–Lithuanian War over territories taken by Poland in 1920, etc., etc. So... we have to choose the wording carefully. No one person started WW2.
 * 4.2. If we use the current Kershaw quote I feel we need to change it as otherwise by repeating it verbatim ("main author of a war") we have a copyright infringement. I chose the word 'antagonist' carefully, for reasons I can explain if required, but will not do now, for brevity of reply (i.e. avoiding 'wall of text' replies;-)
 * 4.3. To Guy, you ask who started WW2. I feel the answer to that question by the subject of this page should also be mentioned, viz. Hitler himself. He is supported by other historian in his opinion that he did not want war nor start it. He wrote in his last will: "It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. ...I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America."
 * So... here's a new expanded and slightly tweaked proposal:
 * "Hitler is considered the principle antagonist in what led to the outbreak of WW2 in the European theatre (*1). He himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted war (*2), an opinion which is shared by certain historians (*3). In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity, Aryan superiority combined with his anti-semitic policies, resulted in the deaths of over five million Jews." (*4)
 * (*1. Kershaw), (*2. Hitler), (*3. Liddel-Hart, A.J.Taylor), (*4. Rummel).
 * 4.5. To Diannaa. I am not using Hillberg as the source, but Rummel, as I made clear. I used Hillberg only as an example for this discussion to show the problems in attributing responsibility. I wrote that I used Rummel as the source, who gives a figure of 5.2 million. I mentioned Hillberg ONLY as he gives a breakdown of that figure. I did so to show that Churchill's democidal and illegal policy of deliberate starvation must also be attributed responsibility for the deaths from "Ghettoization and general privation" and "starvation" in Poland and elsewhere in the Axis occupied territories.
 * 4.6. I would tweak your proposal thusly: "Hitler's political programme is considered the principle cause for the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in the European theatre of the war(*1). He himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted war(*2), an opinion which is shared by certain historians(*3). In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." But there is a problem here that Hiilberg and Rummel do not say "at least 5.5 million", which is why I wrote "over 5 million".
 * 4.7. To Kierzek. As we agree the deaths of over five million Jews only occurred during the war, (and most of these in the latter stages of it), I therefore feel it is important to make that clear in the replacement sentence.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Addition: Regarding the above point 4.5. "January 1942. ...In Greece, people were dying of starvation at a rate of 2,000 a day. Winston Churchill completely opposed any lifting of the naval blockade to allow food in, as he claimed this would prop up the Nazis."
 * QUESTION: Why do editors feel we need to state: "which left over fifty million dead in the European theatre of the war". In what way does this figure relate specifically to Hitler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)
 * None of the sources agree on the number of Jews killed but 5.5 million is the bare minimum according to most of the sources I have looked at. I already stated above that Rummel's numbers are lower than everyone else, so 5.5 million is the bare minimum that should appear in the lede. The sentence "He himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted war(*2), an opinion which is shared by certain historians" has to be removed. It's not historically accurate, as Hitler himself started the war against Poland. What he did not want was to start a major war; he thought the war would be a minor one, and people would just let him take what he wanted, like happened in Czechoslovakia. But that's too much detail for the lede, which needs to be a concise overview. Here's my latest suggested wording, which is based on Mystichumwipe's latest version: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in Europe alone. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse as stated more than once, we are only talking about the war in Europe not including the Asiatic-Pacific theatre of World War II, which "officially" started in 1937. I can agree to your new wording, Diannaa, above. Further I concur that Hitler's self-serving statement as to not wanting war, should not be placed in the lede. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mystichumwipe, your suggested sentences had included the statement that Hitler was responsible for WWII, which had left 50 million dead. So I'm not sure why you now have second thoughts about including this information. Also, I agree with Dianna's assessment that the level of detail has to be appropriate for the lead and that Hitler's view on war expressed in his speeches and final testament have no place there.
 * Dianna, I agree with your latest suggested wording. Malljaja (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To Dianna. The sources of Rummel and Hillberg are lower than 5.5. (If we don't trust Rummel here, why are we using Rummel as the source elsewhere?) Gerald Reitlinger's 'The Final Solution' (1953) has 4.2 to 4.5 million. A study led by Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin suggests the lowest estimate could be 5.29 million. As there is no no precise figure, writing "over 5 million" covers ALL estimates except Reitlinger's.
 * Stating what we personally believe is "not historically accurate" does not help us, as it verifiability NOT truth that is the criteria for inclusion. Which is where we came into this discussion here at DRN. Hitler definitely did state in his last will that he didn't want a war, nor start it. Some historians agree, as has been cited here. That is a verifiable statement of fact.
 * Your new tweak of my sentence is problemeatical as it does not paraphrase the sources that I am citing and is therefore again getting back towards a synthesis.
 * Would anyone care to answer my recent question on the inclusion of the 50 million figure?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * * Rummel's numbers are too low, so there's no reason to go lower still. Outdated sources such as Reitlinger (1953) and Hilberg (1960) should not be considered authoritative. We need to use reliable mainstream current historians. To include outdated or fringe views, especially in the lede of the article, gives undue weight to those views. WP:FRINGE says that material not broadly supported by current scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight.
 * * What Hitler said in his last will should not be given undue weight by including it in the lead in my opinion. Hitler himself would be considered a primary source; Hitler's own statements about his motives and behaviour would have been worded to show himself in the best light. That's not the point of view that should be presented in this article; we need to give a NPOV view based on current scholarship.
 * * The 50 million figure is basic information to give the reader (many of which will be high school students learning about the subject for the first time) a sense of the scope of WWII. If we leave it out, my suggested wording becomes "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The figure as I cited way back in my opening statement was really "over" 50 million (but I can agree to the present sentence as Diannaa suggests); cited to Kershaw in either of his works, "Hitler: A Biography" (2008) p. 969 or "Hitler: Nemesis", p. 841. Hitler's foreign policy was clearly a desire to enact long held racial and territorial expansion goals; with opportunistic action and reaction over time, as to events. I agree there were conflicts which occurred during the 1930s, which along with the Great Depression gave rise to the atmosphere which culminated in the overt act of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany on 1 Sept. 1939; the fact remains that the majority of main stream historians place the start of World War II in Europe on that overt act which was ordered by Hitler. See: Glantz, "When Titans Clashed", pp. 13-17; Gerwarth, "Hitler's Hangman", pp. 138, 139; Snyder, "Encyclopedia of the Third Reich", p. 157; to name a few. Therefore, the 50 million number should remain, in proper context; which I thought from reading the comments above had already been agreed to (and which has been present in the article lede, all along). Kierzek (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To Diannaa.
 * Is Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin a reliable mainstream current historian in your opinion? His research was conducted in the late 90's and published around 2000. He gives a lowest possible estimation of 5.29 million. Should we disregard his research, in your opinion?
 * What is your source for stating Rummel's numbers are too low? bearing in mind WP:VNT? The low end of Benz's research confirms his estimate. And why do we use Rummel's figures elsewhere then?
 * We would not be "going lower". We would be saying accurately and fairly a figure that includes all of what are admitted are only imprecise estimates. Therefore I prefer "over 5 million" as it include all the estimates and does not unnecessarily exclude Rummel, Hillberg AND the more recent Benz estimates.


 * We can make a reference to Hitler's own opinion on the war and its cause on a page about himself. "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. E.g., an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot,..." So a biography page article can quote perintent words from that person. We would not be quoting the words, or putting an interpreation of them, merely informing that they exist. Or do we not want the reader to know that Hitler denied he caused the war and claimed that he never wanted war? A NPOV view based on current scholarship would allow the opinion of the discussed personality on his own biography page be at least referred to in brief. Not allowing even that, nor allowing a reference to that opinion being supported by certain respected historians would be not only a neutrality violation but would be a form of censorship. Hitler did write this in his last will: "Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem — similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied." We can refer to that without quouting it.


 * If the 50 million figure is "basic information to give the reader (many of which will be high school students learning about the subject for the first time) a sense of the scope of WWII", do you think we should also include this info on pages of Churchill and Roosevelt, etc?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. Accuracy of sources? The sources given previously were incorrect for "systematic murder". Despite what was claimed one source given was to an unrelated index page. The other made no mention of the term "systematic muder" and instead also talked of 'emigration' to avoid deaths. In regard to this, I notice also that in the figures given to support the disputed 'eleven million' the figures for the Katyn massacre ("21,892 - Snyder, Bloodlands, p 415; 20,000 - Evans, The Third Reich at War. p 44") were attributed to Hitler as a source for the challenged his "racist policies". But the Katyn massacre was a Soviet crime! :-0 --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 5
In order to help those who are following along to evaluate the progress we are making, could each of you please post what you believe to be the wording that should go in the article along with a direct quote from the citation or citations that support it? Please put any commentary in a followup comment; I just want to see what the person reading the article will see.

Example:

Article wording: "Adolph Hitler is best known for his role in the hit show "Hitler on Ice." Other than that little is known about him."

Quote supporting the above: "I like your approach, now let's see your departure."

Source: http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: I was hoping for direct quotes from the sources so that the reader can easily identify any WP:SYNTHESIS problem such as adding the numbers from a source that says that 100,000 people watched his "Hitler on Ice" show in Europe and another source that says that 50,000 people watched him skate in the US without specifying the show and claiming that 150,000 people watched the "Hitler on Ice" show. This of course would miss Hitlers performance in the Ill-Fated July 4th Death Valley Winter Olympics and overstate the numbers for the "Hitler on Ice" show.

And no, the sources don't have to be cited in the lead. Anywhere in the article will do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Hitler's political programme is considered the principle cause for the outbreak of World War II in the European theatre of that war (*1), though he himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted the war nor caused it (*2), (an opinion which is shared by certain historians) (*3). In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of millions of people deemed racially inferior including over five million Jews." (*4)
 * (*1. Kershaw), (*2. Hitler), (*3. Liddel-Hart, A.J.Taylor, Frank McDonough, Ian Kershaw, Alan Sharp), (*4. Hillberg, Rummel, Benz).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As requested direct quotes from sources.


 * Citation 1. -- Ian Kershaw, Hitler: Nemesis, pg 841. Publ. 2000.
 * “Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving their lost ones and trying to put their shattered lives together again."


 * Citation 2.1 Hitler's final will: It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. ...I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem—similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war..."


 * Citation 3.1 -- Sir Basil Lidell Hart, History of the Second World War. Pg 6. Published by Konecky & Konecky; 1st edition (May 18, 2007).
 * “It sufficed for the purposes of the Nuremberg trial to assume that the outbreak of war, and all its exertions, were purely due to Hitler’s aggression. But that is too simple and shallow an explanation. The last thing that Hitler wanted to produce was another great war. “


 * Citation 3.2 --Frank McDonough, in his foreword to 'Origins of the Second World War: An International Perspective'. Pgs 2-4.  Publication Date: November 24, 2011.
 * "What we now call the Second World War is generally thought to have started with the German attack on Poland on 1 September 1939. In fact, that did not start a ‘world war’, only a limited conflict involving five European powers: Germany, Poland, France, Britain and the Soviet Union. It was really a five-week German–Polish War."
 * "British historian A.J.P Taylor [wrote that] a second war between Germany and Britain and France over Versailles was implicit from the moment that treaty was signed. ...Alan Sharp claims that if blame is assigned fairly, then it should be spread between those who concluded the settlement and subsequent leaders who had ample opportunity to rectify its alleged deficiencies between 1919 and 1939."
 * "Precisely what objectives the Nazi dictator was pursuing in foreign policy has been at the centre of ceaseless wrangling among historians.* Two key points of discussion have revolved around the questions of whether Hitler was pursuing a consistent programme – a ‘timetable of aggression’ – or whether he was merely an unprincipled opportunist. Lars Lüdicke explores these questions..." (*citing Kershaw, 'The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation'. London, 2000, 4th ed., pp. 134–60)


 * Citation 3.3 :-- A.J.P. Taylor. 'The Origins of the Second World War', Penguin books. 1991. Foreword pgs 8- 18. he also discusses the opinion of Hitler wanting war to create Lebensraum in this foreword (pg. 23-24)
 * "...some critics made a great fuss about Hitler, attributing to him sole responsibility for the war or something near it. Far from wanting war, a general war was the last thing he wanted. This is not guesswork. It is demonstrated beyond peradventure by the record of German armament before the second World war or even during it. It would have been obvious long ago if men had not been blinded by two mistakes. Before the war they listened to what Hitler said instead of looking at what he did. After the war they wanted to pin on him the guilt for everything which happened, regardless of the evidence. This is illustrated, for example, by the almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted. However, the record is there for anyone who wishes to use it, dispassionately analysed by Mr Burton Klein. ...The one thing he did not plan was the great war often attributed to him. ...[to those who] complained that my book had been welcomed, mistakenly or not, by former supporters of Hitler. This seems to me a disgraceful argument to be used against a work of history... It is not my fault that, according to the record, the Austrian crisis was launched by Schuschnigg, not by Hitler; not my fault that the British government, according to the record, not Hitler, took the lead in dismembering Czechoslovakia; not my fault that the British government in 1939 gave Hitler the impression that they were more concerned to impose concessions on the Poles than to resist Germany. If these things tell in favour of Hitler, it is the fault of previous legends which have been repeated by historians without examination. These legends have a long life. I suspect I have repeated some. For instance I went on believing until the last moment that Hitler summoned Hacha to Berlin; only when the book was in proof, did I look at the records again and discover that Hacha asked to come to Berlin, not the other way round. No doubt other legends have slipped through. Destroying these legends is not a vindication of Hitler. It is a service to historical truth, and my book should be challenged only on this basis, not for the political morals which people choose to draw from it."


 * Citation 4. Raul Hillberg. The Destruction of the European Jews' revised 1985.
 * "Hilberg's own detailed breakdown reveals a total estimated death toll of 5.1 million Jews. Only for the death toll at Belzec does Hilberg provide a precise figure, all the others are rounded. When these rounding factors are taken into account a range of 4.9 million to 5.4 million deaths emerges.
 * ( Raul Hillberg, 'The Destruction of the European Jews' revised 1985 = 5.1 million; R. J. Rummel. 'Death by Government', Pg 10, Table1.5 = 5.2 million; Wolfgang Benz. University of Berlin 'Dimension des Völkermords', Oldenbourg, Munich 1991 = 5.29 - 6 million;  Reitlinger, 'The Final Solution', =  4.2 to 4.5 million)


 * Regarding the statement being proposed here to write that Hitler or his policies caused WW2, Kershaw has said: "we have this curve that Hitler is determined by the society at the beginning but by the end he is determining the fate of the society. It does move inextricably from a macrostructural account to a more personalized account. However, I do not see this as a process where Hitler is in control of what's happening, like a programmed development, but rather Hitler is himself shaped by these forces."


 * Citation 2.2
 * As this article is about Hitler, I hope editors will not misinterpret or get upset that I here include relevant excerpts from Hitler's speeches regarding his statements that he did not want a war:
 * April, 1939. Wilhelmshaven speech.
 * "Germany has no intention of attacking other people. What we, however, do not want to renounce is the building up of our economic relations. We have a right thereto and I do not accept any condition from a European or a non-European statesman....We are not thinking about making war on other peoples. However, our precondition is that they leave us in peace. In any case the German Reich is not ready everlastingly to accept intimidation or even a policy of encirclement. I once made an agreement with England - namely, the Naval Treaty. It is based on the earnest desire which we all possess never to have to go to war against England. But this wish can only be a mutual one."


 * October 6th, 1939. Speech to the Reichstag, Berlin.
 * "I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people. To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept, and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm - in short, of peace. Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; this is, without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it. If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed. Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruccken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms, and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigour of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields. One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards. Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering. If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last. Then we shall fight."


 * January 30, 1940. Speech at the Berlin Sportspalast. :
 * "in 1939 these Western powers decided to drop the mask behind which they were hiding, they declared war on Germany against all of our endeavors, even though we tried to accommodate and oblige them. Today, they are unembarrassed to admit: yes, Poland would have probably acquiesced, but we did not want that. They admit today that it would have easily been possible to effect an understanding. But they did not want that. They wanted war. Okay! ...Often, I reached out a hand towards them. They slapped it back. They also cried: no, not reconciliation, not communication, we want a fight! So they got their fight! ...the second [phase] begins. Mr. Churchill cannot wait for it to begin. He lets his middlemen - and he says it himself too - express the hope that the war with bombs may start soon. And they have already written, that this fight will naturally not respect women and children. Well! When has Britain ever respected women and children? The whole blockade war is deliberately against women and children. The war against the Boers was solely against women and children. That was when the concentration camp was invented; this idea was born of a British brain. We only researched it in the encyclopedia and later copied it,..." --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As per Dianna's suggestion (and sources): "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II.1 His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.2"
 * 1Kershaw [“Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving their lost ones and trying to put their shattered lives together again." (Hitler: Nemesis p. 841); and "Hitler had sought the conflict. He was the main author of a war which had been a central element in his thinking for almost two decades." (Hitler: Nemesis, p. 388)]
 * 2as given below in Dianna's posting
 * In my opinion, these sources do not have to be given in the lead, but should be provided in the Legacy section.Malljaja (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II.1 His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.2


 * 1Kershaw (Nemesis, p. 841)
 * 2Goldhagen (1996) p 411 - 5.6 to 5.9 million; USHMM website - nearly 6 million; Evans (2008) page 315 - a bare minimum of 5.5 million, and quotes Eichmann on the same page as saying 6 million; Snyder (2010) p 411 - 5.4 million in the geographical area covered by his book, which does not include events in Western Europe. Snyder is also the source for "millions of others" as he states 10 million intentionally murdered in the geographic area covered by his book. Citations do not need to appear in the lead, as long as the facts are repeated and cited in the body. Self-serving remarks Hitler made on his deathbed do not belong in the lead. -- Dianna (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the suggested versions and cited sources given above, I believe it should state: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." (*then in The Holocaust section a further footnote can be added if consensus calls for it as to the estimates of Jews killed; the Legacy section already speaks to the total numbers therein; additional sources can be added, if consensus calls for it). Kierzek (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kershaw says, "[Hitler was] the main author ..." ("Nemesis" p. 841.) "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources" Kershaw does not state that Hitler alone started WW2. Nor even that his policies ALONE led to the war.

This has already been pointed out before. if anyone disagrees with this reasoning can they please explain why so that I need not mention it again. I acknowledge there is a consensus being built up here. But... no argument of consensus overrides infringing wiki policy.


 * Kershaw is saying that Hitler was one of numerous authors of the war, and in his opinion was the main one. And as Kershaw's view is contradicted by Liddell-Hart, A.J.Taylor, etc., wouldn't it therefore be better to write this not as a statement of uncontested fact.  I.e. instead we write it with wording that says he  is considered the main author... etc. or something similar?
 * mallaja's suggestion also goes beyond the sources it is citing. Rummel's figures contradict, the "at least" wording. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 6
If there's no reason to exclude Rummel's calculations there's no reason to exclude the higher-end calculations either. Here is my latest suggested wording: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main factor led to the outbreak of World War II. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of between 5.2 and 6 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." – Dianna (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you using Snyder as a citation for the "millions of other people deemed racially inferior"? I thought that Snyder counted the killing of handicapped, homosexuals, and Soviet prisoners of war, many of whom were (by Hitler's definition) members of the so-called "master race". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to Jews, Hitler also considered Gypsies and Soviets (Slavs) to be racially inferior. Poles, Ukranians, and Russians were not considered "Aryan"; Jews and Gypsies were at the very bottom of the racial continuum, Slavs were somewhere in between, and "Aryans" were at the very top as the master race. Rummel lists 10,547,000 Slavs and 258,000 Gypsies on his chart which is from his book Death by Government (page 112). This is being used as the source for "millions of other people deemed racially inferior", but Snyder and any number of other sources also mention the 3 million Soviet prisoners of war and other Russians and Poles that were shot or intentionally starved. The Soviet prisoners of war were placed in open pens in the countryside without food or shelter, and they died. Here's some quotes from the other sources, as requested. These sources detail how many Jews were killed, and also give some insight into the way the top Nazi officials expected the war in the east to unfold. These sources contradict Mystichumwipe's proposed addition stating that Hitler did not want or expect his actions in the East to lead to war, and I strongly oppose that addition. My proposed wording remains the same.


 * Snyder, Bloodlands (2010) Page 416:


 * Snyder, Bloodlands, p. 411 (remember he is not including victims in Western Europe):


 * Evans, The Third Reich at War (2008) p 318:


 * Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (2010) p 180–181:


 * USHMM website presents its estimate of the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust in the following chart (Click on "How many Jews were murdered in each country"):

– Dianna (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Goldhagen Hitler's Willing Executioners (1996) Map page 411: Estimated number of Jews killed in the Holocaust:


 * Longerich's The Holocaust, p 181 DOES NOT state that millions of lives were planned only to be systematically starved to death, nor that this was done on racial reasoning. There was a war going on. All sides resorted to attacks on civilians; by bombings (started by Churchill and the British); by blockades that were intended to cause populations to give up or starve (also started by Churchill and the British); by forced evacuations and killings based on pre-existing racial and ethnic fault-lines, as evidenced by Keith Lowe, Prof Scheck, etc.
 * Longerich in fact writes that the 30 million projected lives at risk were expected to either die or "emigrate to Siberia". This part has been left out of the above quotes from pg.181, as it was also done previously in this discussion.


 * And the last two charts appear to detail how many Jews remained in the mentioned countries after the war. (Populations prior to war compared to numbers afterwards). These sources detail diminished populations of Jews by country. There is no mention anywhere in that site that I could see which detailed numbers of emigrations. Wouldn't that need to be taken into account for these to be reliable figures of deaths? And aren't these figures ignoring the effect of Churchill's 'starvation' blockade?


 * But, ...whatever, ...this is not relevant to my suggestion for wording as I am not disputing this aspect of the sentence.


 * What is relevant is that I also don' t see how these sources and details "give some insight into the way the top Nazi officials expected the war in the east to unfold." Could you explain how these sources specifically state that or even imply that? Also could you explain how these sources contradict my  proposed addition stating that Hitler said he did not want war. That he said and wrote that is an indisputable statement of fact. That Liddell-Hart, A.J.P.Taylor, and others agree is also indisputable fact. Could you explain why you are strongly opposed to including reference to indisputable statements of fact?  This is an article about Hitler. We have other pages about WW2, etc. What is your reasoning based on wiki policy for excluding a reference to Hitler's own viewpoint and that of distinguished historians?
 * If the sentence we end up with only presents the view that Hitler wanted, planned and executed a war with the clear intention to kill millions of people deemed racially inferior in order to create lebensraum for his own people, and any source that contradicts that is excluded, then that would be a WP:NPOV infringement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Our task is not determine what the methods were that USHMM and Goldhagen used to arrive at the above numbers. That would be original research. Our task is to determine whether these two sources are considered reliable and authoritative. The USHMM is a very well-respected US institution devoted to education about and research into the Holocaust; Daniel Goldhagen's work has been controversial because of his thesis that the Holocaust was a continuation of 19th century antisemitism. However, Ian Kershaw cites Goldhagen several times in Nemesis as a source for the extent of the antisemitism during the Weimar Republic and for first-hand accounts of the Nazi atrocities. Kershaw (on p. 848) characterises Goldhagen's interpretation of antisemitism as "contentious," but his use of Goldhagen indicates that he considers him an authoritative source for important accounts of the Holocaust. Therefore, Goldhagen can also be considered a reliable and verifiable source.


 * In regards to Liddell and Taylor cited by Mystiumwipe in earlier posts, Liddell was a military historian who did research on military strategy in WWII, but cannot be considered an expert on Hitler himself—neither Hubris nor Nemesis (both seminal and recent works on Hitler) refer to Liddell. Using AJP Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War as a source is questionable for several reasons: (i) it was published in 1961, so information therein is very dated, and, more importantly, (ii) its central thesis that Hitler was an ordinary leader who did not mean to go to war was and still is highly controversial. And although some contrarian views may turn out to be correct, Taylor's hasn't stood the test of time, as it has not been accepted by the consensus of historical scholarly research.


 * That Hitler said in some of his speeches and declarations that he did not want to go to war is immaterial—he was a shrewd politician and any of his statements cannot be considered reliable reflections of his true views and intentions. Moreover, actions speak louder than words, in his actions are well documented and clearly indicate that he pursued a very aggressive foreign policy including military operations and illegal annexations (e.g., even preceding WWII, the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 in contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the annexation of Austria in 1938). Lastly, Hitler's speeches or testament are primary sources and thus they cannot be included here.


 * The observations of Frank McDonough—given above by Mystiumwip—about the exact start of WWII are not relevant here. The overwhelming majority of historians consider Hitler's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 the start of WWII. That the war was initially a regional one does not contradict this. Moreover, Hitler's other military operations, such as the invasion of France, the Benelux countries, and the Soviet Union along with the air war against Britain dramatically broadened the scope of WWII. Malljaja (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As to the start of the war in Europe-"Hitler adopted an aggressive foreign policy." Snyder, Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, p. 157. Hitler had only wanted to delay the war not avoid it happening at all. Kershaw: "Hitler had led Germany into a general European war he had wanted to avoid for several more years." Hitler: A Biography, p. 510. Now it is true others played a part, as did the Great Depression, as I stated before; however, irregardless of which school of thought is used (whether the Second World War was only an extension of the World War I or not), Hitler's invasion of Poland is considered the start of the war in Europe. "Already on 12 August, Hitler had set the likely date of the 26th for the invasion of Poland." Kershaw, p. 502; of course the invasion was delayed, as you all know, until 1 Sept. "An angered Hitler...said privately, 'I am 50 years old, and prefer war now to when I shall be 53 or 60'." Snyder, p. 157.


 * It is clear by further example text that Hitler always wanted war but originally hoped it would be are a later time-table; he relied over time on nerve, lying and bullying to try and get what he wanted. That is why Hitler stating he "wanted peace" is not credible. "Internationally, Hitler's combination of bullying and blackmail could not have worked but for the fragility of post-war Europe...The western governments, backed by their war-weary populations, anxious more than all else to do everything possible to avoid a new conflagration, their traditional diplomacy no match for unprecedented techniques of lying and threatening...went out of their way to placate Hitler." Kershaw, p. 511. "Hitler had felt time closing in on him, under pressure to act lest the conditions became more disadvantageous. He had thought of war against the West around 1943-5, against the Soviet Union-thought no time-scale was ever given-at some point after that. He never thought of avoiding war." Kershaw, p. 512. "Hitler adopted the technique of deliberately lying in order to lull his future victims into a false sense of security." Snyder, p. 157. Kierzek (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind the wiki policy of WP:VNT here are two questions which I would like to hear viewpoints upon:
 * Q1. Regarding my proposal for the lead: do the cited sources verify the statement that a.) Hitler stated that he did not want war nor start it and b.) that certain historians concur with this view? I say they do. Does anyone disagree? If so, on what grounds?
 * Q2. Regarding Diannaa's proposal and versions of it from others: do the cited sources verify the statement that Hitler or his policy started WW2? I say they do not, and that these sentence proposals actually contradict the cited source from Kershaw, as explained a few times previously. Does anyone disagree? If so, on what grounds?--
 * To avoid cherrypicking and to maintain a neutral viewpoint I feel we need to acknowledge there is no unanimous opinion on Hitler's motives: "precisely what objectives the Nazi dictator was pursuing in foreign policy has been at the centre of ceaseless wrangling among historians." Frank McDonough--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Answer to question 1: Almost all historians say that Hitler and his policies were the leading cause of WWII in Europe and date the start of WWII to his invasion of Poland, so to put an opposite point of view into the article, and especially into the lead, gives undue weight to fringe theories. Hitler said plenty of things to try justify what he did, but they don't belong in the lead, as he is a primary source and naturally is going to attempt to present his own behaviour in the best possible light.
 * Answer to question 2: Hitler's foreign policy was to seize other people's countries and kill or displace the inhabitants and supplant them with immigrants from Germany, as he felt the Germans were a master race entitled to more living space. He himself said so, and historians are pretty much unanimous about this. Being ambivalent about this, especially into the lead, would give undue weight to fringe theories. -- Dianna (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 7
I believe per WP:NPOV, there has been shown what the majority view of current main-line historians is, as stated with citations above in answer to your queries, Mystichumwipe. Please keep in mind, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Now we have made, I believe, some progress for these lede sentences, lets work towards continuing that and move forward. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you both saying that Frank McDonough, Professor of International History in the School of Humanities and Social Science at Liverpool John Moores University is expressing a "fringe" view? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as Frank McDonough's view differs from the majority view -- that the invasion of Poland was the start of WWII (See Timeline of World War II) they are indeed fringe. Please note that "fringe" does not equal "wrong". Sometimes the fringe theory turns out to be right, as seen in our articles about Alfred Wegener and Ignaz Semmelweis. Nonetheless, we don't have a crystal ball, and so we treat all fringe theories according to how much acceptance they have, not according to our prediction that they may someday become the majority view. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Prof. McDonough's 2011 book (Origins of the Second World War: An International Perspective) and the view that there is no unanimous opinion on Hitler's motives: "precisely what objectives the Nazi dictator was pursuing in foreign policy has been at the centre of ceaseless wrangling among historians." I claim is the opposite of fringe. It represents the current consensus view. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I could very well be wrong -- I am far less familiar with the history of WWII than any of you (that's one of the nice things about volunteering at DRN; this week i might be learning about WWII, and next week it might be My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic or the Nordenfelt gun.) One thing I do know is what to do when there is a disagreement such as the above. Obviously taking it to DRN is out -- you are already here. Our methods (content discussion only, no authority to make anyone do anything outside of DRN) resolve a lot of disputes, but not all. The way to resolve this is to post a WP:RFC on the article talk page. Unlike here, where what I say carries no special weight (again, that's how DRN is designed), an RfC ends up with an experienced closer who determines what the consensus is, and you all have to abide by it. Not just the consensus among the editors who are working on the page, either; RfCs usually attract a wide variety of outside opinions. I am going to go back to quietly watching your progress now. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To avoid a possibly unnecessary RfC, perhaps Diannaa and Kierzek can confirm whether they regard McDonough - and his 2011 panel, whose essays he has collected together  - as  expressing 'fringe' views or not. A concise 'yes' or 'no' would suffice.

The proof of the accuracy of my quote from Prof. McDonough is that even Snyder and Richard Evans are themselves not totally in agreement []. Here is Evans discussing Snyder: Regarding the reliability of these authors themsleves, Evans starts his review of Snyder's book 'Bloodlands' with a quote attributed to Hitler, stated as if accurate, but which has been the subject of much controversy. 

The difference of view of American historian Francis L. Loewenheim and Richard Evans over the German historian Andreas Hillgruber is another indication of the fierce disputes over this WW2 history:

Hillgruber argued that World War II began with the Anglo-French declarations of war on Germany on 3 September 1939 and NOT with the German actions on 1st September 1939. (Hitler, König Carol und Marschall Antonescu: die deutsch-rumänischen Beziehungen, 1938-1944 by Andreas Hillgruber). Hillgruber also acknoweledged that Hitler had believed that he could retake German territory acceded to Poland in the Treaty of Versailles in 1939 without provoking a war with Britain and France, and was surprised by the British declaration of war. In the 1980's there was what has been called the Historikerstreit ("historians' quarrel") about all this. Evans wrote his 1989 book In Hitler's Shadow to publicise his views on this Historikerstreit. Ernst Nolte, Joachim Fest, Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, Hagen Schulze, Imanuel Geiss and Klaus Hildebrand were historians/academics who disagreed with Evans. In other words there HAS been ceaseless wrangling over all of this. From Liddel-Hart, and A.J.P.Taylor in the 60's, with the Historikerstreit in the 80's and even to more recent times.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The exact start date of WWII is not relevant to the discussion here, so whether or not Frank McDonough's views should be included or not is unimportant. It's a distraction. The entry had and passed a very thorough GA review not long ago, and one of the GA assessments was, "Uses high-quality sources where possible, such as Hitler's principal biographers." In order to keep the article at GA level (or bring it to FA) it is imperative to use authoritative sources from noted scholars and to exclude material that does not meet these criteria. Malljaja (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't think we were arguing what is "the exact start date", but whether the proposals stating that Hitler and/or his policies led to WW2 or started WW2 are accurate and verifiable using reliable sources. Kershaw isn't saying that and Frank McDonough and his team (e.g. Alan Sharp) confirm that the origins of WW2 are complex and guilt for starting it does NOT lie with one person or one persons foreign policies. That is what I have been discussing. It is not being suggested that we include McDonough's quote in the article sentence. So I agree all the above discussion is slightly unnecessary, especially if we could we just concentrate on discussing the first half of my proposal for a moment. ;-)
 * It starts with Kershaw's quote (which even he also slighly contradicts at other places in other writings/interviews, as quoted previously), it uses the neutral wording "is considered" and then proceeds to mention Hitler's own view and how "certain historians" concur with it. Its not promoting any particular view, merely stating that differences of viewpoint and understanding exist and have always existed from the time of the events themselves. Thus nothing fringe is being promoted; the differences ("ceaseless wrangling") are alluded to; and all sides of that "wrangling" are covered.


 * Plus I still don't understand the requirement to keep out Hitler's own stated view of what he did and why on the page specific to Hitler? Even if the argument is that Hitler's view and those that agree with it are fringe (which I dispute), how is Hitler's own stated view not relevant to the wiki article about him? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's own stated view does not belong in the lead paragraph, which should be a concise summary of what the majority of academics believe. It could be used lower in the article (properly attributed of course) -- that's an editorial decision that should be decided by consensus. You cannot shoehorn all possible complexities and controversies into the lead of an encyclopedia article. Some things need to be expanded on in the sections below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 7
Getting back to the question at hand, it appears that at least some of you are converging on this wording:


 * " Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II.1 His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.2 "


 * "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe.1 His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.2"

I am satisfied that the above does not violate WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Other than that I don't care what wording is chosen.

Mystichumwipe, would you be so kind as to post the exact wording you prefer, keeping as much of the above as you are comfortable with? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as an add on to Guy's above comment, that Hitler's motives (the focus of McDonough's comment) are a topic of recurrent debate among some historians is again not relevant to the lead sentence in question. It may still not be very well understood why Hitler embarked on his aggressive policies (though Kershaw's work and also Speer's insight provide some good hypotheses on that point), but the consensus among reputable historians is that Hitler's policies did precipitate WWII. I agree with the revised wording in Guy's comment immediately above. Malljaja (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mystichumwipe, remember, we are only talking about lede sentences here which are to be a summary of sections cited in the article. I agree with Guy's proposed revised wording suggested above; I would suggest the addition of: "in Europe" at the end of the first sentence proposed. Please do reply to Guy's wording; I hope we all can reach an agreement. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this wording is acceptable and agree with Kierzek's small amendment. -- Dianna (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I changed it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Have I missed my chance to respond?


 * For, as you hopefully have noticed by now, (-) I didn't agree that the cited Kershaw quote ("Hitler was the main author of a war") is saying the same thing as "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II." Its saying he was the main one of numerous authors (not the only one). So "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe" would have been my preference.

"Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of millions of people deemed racially inferior including over five million Jews."


 * I agree with the suggested revision of the first sentence, but prefer the old wording in the second sentence: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." Malljaja (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree to the suggested revision of the first sentence but also prefer the more detailed prior second sentence put forth by Guy. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first sentence but prefer Guy's version of the second sentence as well. It's far simpler in its construction yet conveys more information, and is actually slightly more accurate, because people were also being killed before the start of the war (Kristallnacht, for example). "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

CLOSING

It appears that we have pretty much gone as far as we can go within the constraints of DRN. I am going to wait another 24 hours and then close this as "failed".

The good news is that we have settled the synthesis issue and now the matter can be decided by consensus.

To determine what to do next, please see WP:DR.

Finally, I would like to thank all of you for being so cooperative and for focusing on content and citations. It has been a pleasure working with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)